Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[TCD333]

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.

From a designers perspective, it's handy to know what is going on in the MHz region even if it doesn't mean much to the lay person.

WRT HQplayer software, you may want to consider that for most in the industry from a subjective, objective and sheer format conversion options POV, this software is nothing less than superb.

TCD

 

[dc655321]

From a designers perspective, it's handy to know what is going on in the MHz region even if it doesn't mean much to the lay person.

WRT HQplayer software, you may want to consider that for most in the industry from a subjective, objective and sheer format conversion options POV, this software is nothing less than superb.

TCD

What industry are you referring to?

 

[TCD333]

What industry are you referring to?

Pro audio, Hi End and TBH everything in between. I know many people who use HQplayer from just enthusiasts to recording engineers.
It's a powerhouse software package.

 

[JSmith]

I know many people who use HQplayer

That's nice... I don't think anyone is saying there is a problem with this software or that it isn't functional, however this discussion is about the supposed merits of DSD/SACD and nothing really has been presented that shows DSD is worth bothering with over PCM.


JSmith

 

[Blumlein 88]

That's nice... I don't think anyone is saying there is a problem with this software or that it isn't functional, however this discussion is about the supposed merits of DSD/SACD and nothing really has been presented that shows DSD is worth bothering with over PCM.


JSmith

You don't have to use DSD with Miska's software. Miska would think it best that you do so.

 

[JSmith]

You don't have to use DSD with Miska's software.

Yes, am aware.

Miska would think it best that you do so.

It sure has come across that way. I note the software also allows converting PCM to DSD (if it works https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/hqplayer-not-converting-pcm-to-dsd.7142/)... nothing has been presented that shows there is any major or audible benefit to this process.


JSmith

 

[Music1969]

You don't have to use DSD with Miska's software. Miska would think it best that you do so.

He actually doesn't care, he doesn't get paid for how you use it.

He just shows some DACs measure better when fed DSD rates though, vs PCM

Looks like he's been banned from this thread though.

But to be honest, every possible discussion point has been made from both sides. It is only going in circles from here.

 

[Geert]

It is only going in circles from here since page 13

 

[amirm]

From a designers perspective, it's handy to know what is going on in the MHz region even if it doesn't mean much to the lay person.

What does it mean to a non-lay person? And why would you care about MHz region when you have a bunch of noise parked just above 24 kHz in DSD content I showed?

 

[Dogcoop]

He actually doesn't care, he doesn't get paid for how you use it.

He just shows some DACs measure better when fed DSD rates though, vs PCM

Looks like he's been banned from this thread though.

But to be honest, every possible discussion point has been made from both sides. It is only going in circles from here.

Are you saying that in order to get the ‘benefits’ of hqplayer you are required to use a specific dac and without ‘that’ dac there is no benefit?

 

[Music1969]

Are you saying that in order to get the ‘benefits’ of hqplayer you are required to use a specific dac and without ‘that’ dac there is no benefit?

Nope this is not at all what I've said.

Some DACs benefit from having DSP done before the DAC.

Some DACs don't.

Some DACs allow you to by-pass ALL their internal DSP externally. Some only allow you to partially by-pass some of their internal DSP.

Impossible to generalise. But it's way off topic.

 

[Dogcoop]

He just shows some DACs measure better when fed DSD rates though, vs PCM

I’m sorry for being ‘off topic.’ You say that Miska was ‘just’ showing that some DAC’s measure better when fed DSD rates. I have not seen any substantiated evidence that DSD provides any advantage over PCM. That is the topic of this thread. Please tell me which DAC’s show an improvement in audible quality when fed DSD over PCM. Amir’s measurements clearly show that there is no benefit to DSD delivery of music. Explain to me what those DAC’s do that allows them to provide an audible improvement when playing DSD media.

 

[Music1969]

Please tell me which DAC’s show an improvement in audible quality when fed DSD over PCM.

I mentioned improved measurements but you are asking about audibility.

I never commented on audibility - not going down that rabbit hole !

Explain to me what those DAC’s do that allows them to provide an audible improvement when playing DSD media.

I didn't comment on DSD media . Was talking specifically about HQPlayer above.

Sorry, it's getting off topic (which is DSD64 downloads like the PS Audio one here).

I don't have any DSD64 files, so can't add anything further.

Everything from both sides has been repeated numerous times.

 

[Dogcoop]

Everything from both sides has been repeated numerous times.

That is true. You have taken a position supporting many of Miska’s posts. Most of the measurements and ‘statements of fact‘ in Miska’s posts have been refuted here. Neither you nor Miska have provided a valid explanation proving your arguments. To paraphrase Amir: it appears as if Miska throws as much **** at the wall hoping that some of it will stick with the less technologically savvy.
So that we can stop repeating ourselves; what is your conclusion or opinion on the topic of this thread?

 

[TCD333]

What does it mean to a non-lay person?

Any number of things. Is it clock related, is it Multi Bit glitch related, is it a DS DAC with low order modulator, is it less than ideal DF artifacts.... and so on.

And why would you care about MHz region when you have a bunch of noise parked just above 24 kHz in DSD content I showed?

WRT DSD OOB noise:

a/ DSD64 (2.8224MHz) does inherently have OOB noise, depends on the order of noise shaping used. Any properly designed AC's that play native DSD will have an FIR LPF which is inherent in the DAC OP architecture. Check the data sheets. After that follows an analog LPF of 3rd or 4th order.
What's left will be too low to harm any electronics or speaker.

b/ Most people these days are streaming or downloading DSD128 or DSD256 which pushes that noise even lower.

c/ If you are seeing huge amounts of noise at near 24kHz in those recordings it might be worth inquiring what ADC they are using. This may even be an artifact from the original analog tape recordings. Even DSD64, depending on noise shaping used should be -100dB at 30kHz and -60dB at 100kHz. Factor in the above mentioned DAC LPF's and OOB noise will not be an issue.

With available download speeds and cheap compatible DACs these days, DSD playback up to 256x is now a reality for people to have fun and explore. Let them decide whether they like it or not. What's the downside?

TCD

 

[TCD333]

That is true. You have taken a position supporting many of Miska’s posts. Most of the measurements and ‘statements of fact‘ in Miska’s posts have been refuted here. Neither you nor Miska have provided a valid explanation proving your arguments. To paraphrase Amir: it appears as if Miska throws as much **** at the wall hoping that some of it will stick with the less technologically savvy.
So that we can stop repeating ourselves; what is your conclusion or opinion on the topic of this thread?

See my post above. OOB noise should not be an issue on a properly designed DAC, even with DSD64.

Enjoy the format choices we have today.

TCD

 

[dualazmak]

Hello @TCD333,

Have you carefully read my post here above and the referred posts?

Such a high amount of "ultra high frequency noises; UHF noises" would be possibly harmful for your tweeters and super-tweeters, and they are highly possibly harmful for our beloved pets, I mean e.g. dogs, cats, birds.... I know some actual cases that dogs and birds became much frustrated with the UHF noises which you cannot hear.

 

[Dogcoop]

See my post above. OOB noise should not be an issue on a properly designed DAC, even with DSD64.

Enjoy the format choices we have today.

TCD

Thanks for your reply.
In response to the argument that OOB noise is not an issue, I will let others argue that issue with you. But, what are the reasons for using DSD for the end user? Amir has posited that there is no benefit to using DSD for the end user. The reason that this thread goes round and round in circles, in my opinion, is because no one has definitively refuted Amir’s conclusion. People post a lot of measurements and technical jargon, but none of it is clear evidence that would result in a different conclusion. If you could help me by posting a succinct reply explaining the reason to reject the conclusion that is the topic of this thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[TCD333]

Hello @TCD333,

Have you carefully read my post here above and the referred posts?

Such a high amount of "ultra high frequency noises; UHF noises" would be possibly harmful for your tweeters and super-tweeters, and they are highly possibly harmful for our beloved pets, I mean e.g. dogs, cats, birds.... I know some actual cases that dogs and birds became much frustrated with the UHF noises which you cannot hear.

You didn't read mine. As stated the OOB noise is attenuated through the DAC if it is designed correctly.

All of those plots are showing OOB noise of the music files, not what comes out of a DAC.

TCD

 

[TCD333]

Thanks for your reply.
In response to the argument that OOB noise is not an issue, I will let others argue that issue with you. But, what are the reasons for using DSD for the end user? Amir has posited that there is no benefit to using DSD for the end user. The reason that this thread goes round and round in circles, in my opinion, is because no one has definitively refuted Amir’s conclusion. People post a lot of measurements and technical jargon, but none of it is clear evidence that would result in a different conclusion. If you could help me by posting a succinct reply explaining the reason to reject the conclusion that is the topic of this thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

IME people use / listen to DSD for subjective reasons, IOW they prefer the sound and I am referring to 128 / 256.

TCD