Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[Ricardus]

Weeee'll, Paul just explained even vinyl sounds better than DSD, so that settles it.

Oh look. he's standing in front of the 6 tube spring reverbs he bought from a designer in Greece. I coulda sworn in a previous video he said he bought tube PLATE reverbs, but I could be wrong.

Spring reverbs sound to boingy for me. I've only heard one spring reverb that sounded like a usable studio reverb and I don't remember which one it was. I'm curious to hear these.

 

[Music1969]

How could it be a separate output level?

PCM level on the ADI-2 can be adjusted.

DSD Direct can't .

See below from @Miska , it's an old post on CA Forum. Unfortunately he's been banned from this thread here

I'm not doubting your result - just enquiring

 

[pkane]

PCM level on the ADI-2 can be adjusted.

DSD Direct can't .

See below from @Miska , it's an old post on CA Forum. Unfortunately he's been banned from this thread here

I'm not doubting your result - just double checking only


View attachment 196844

The level was measured to be the same at the output of the DAC. It doesn’t matter what levels were set by software or at the DAC if the output was the same.

 

[Music1969]

The level was measured to be the same at the output of the DAC. It doesn’t matter what levels were set by software or at the DAC if the output was the same.

Noted . This isn't clear to me with dBc plots you shared. Those are not absolute levels right?

Is the Vrms output identical out of the DAC? If you play a 0dBFS 400Hz sine wave for example. With a multimeter

Again not doubting your results - just checking/asking.

 

[pkane]

Noted . This isn't clear to me with dBc plots you shared. Those are not absolute levels right?

Is the Vrms output identical out of the DAC? If you play a 0dBFS 400Hz sine wave for example. With a multimeter

Again not doubting your results - just checking/asking.

dBc is just log-based display indexed to the 0dB level. ADC converts volts to digital data, this is displayed by REW. If the two outputs show the same level (regardless of display units) the voltage is the same, there's no other way to interpret this. I don't understand the need for a multimeter to measure what was already measured with a much more precise and sensitive device - Cosmos ADC.

 

[Music1969]

dBc is just log-based display indexed to the 0dB level. ADC converts volts to digital data, this is displayed by REW. If the two outputs show the same level (regardless of display units) the voltage is the same, there's no other way to interpret this. I don't understand the need for a multimeter to measure what was already measured with a much more precise and sensitive device - Cosmos ADC.

Noted but if you reduce PCM level -3dB the noise floors will match?

Just looking at Miskas old posts there with his technical explanation where -3dB is mentioned

 

[pkane]

Noted but if you reduce PCM level -3dB the noise floors will match?

Just looking at Miskas old posts there with his technical explanation where -3dB is mentioned

If I reduce PCM level by -3dB, the test signal levels will not match. It is the test signal we want at the same level, not noise, correct?

 

[Ricardus]

Is there a good explanation anywhere about why PCM doesn't suffer the same ultrasonic noise issues even when using 1-bit delta sigma converters?

 

[bennetng]

Is there a good explanation anywhere about why PCM doesn't suffer the same ultrasonic noise issues even when using 1-bit delta sigma converters?

For example CS4328, which Miska mentioned, is not a "DSD DAC" because the term "DSD" did not exist at that time, so it is more correct to call it "1-bit delta sigma" as you mentioned. Also notice it was advertised as an 18-bit/48kHz DAC. In this sense there is also no need to secure more bandwidth beyond 24kHz and it can use a more aggressive analog filter to remove ultrasonic noise. Also notice the word "18-bit". For DSD64, it is entirely possible to have more than 24-bit of dynamic range below 20kHz in digital domain, but the price is to use a modulator with more aggressive noise shaping, which means the rise of > 20kHz noise will be more severe. Those Crystal designers probably found that 18-bit/48kHz with an appropriate analog filter was the best combination -- a modulator with good enough dynamic range and bandwidth and low enough ultrasonic noise which can be effectively filtered by the analog post filter.

The reason that I emphasized digital domain because for a modulated digital domain DSD signal (aka DSD file), the noise can only be moved, but not removed. The noise can only be removed by converting it to multibit with a digital low pass filter, and/or of course, in analog domain. If the filter is too weak, the ultrasonic noise in analog domain will fold back to the passband due to intermodulation distortion, the result is rise of noise below 20kHz. So ADC aliasing is not the the main or only reason of the rise of noise below 20kHz.

 

[Ricardus]

View attachment 197534
For example CS4328, which Miska mentioned, is not a "DSD DAC" because the term "DSD" did not exist at that time, so it is more correct to call it "1-bit delta sigma" as you mentioned. Also notice it was advertised as an 18-bit/48kHz DAC. In this sense there is also no need to secure more bandwidth beyond 24kHz and it can use a more aggressive analog filter to remove ultrasonic noise. Also notice the word "18-bit". For DSD64, it is entirely possible to have more than 24-bit of dynamic range below 20kHz in digital domain, but the price is to use a modulator with more aggressive noise shaping, which means the rise of > 20kHz noise will be more severe. Those Crystal designers probably found that 18-bit/48kHz with an appropriate analog filter was the best combination -- a modulator with good enough dynamic range and bandwidth and low enough ultrasonic noise which can be effectively filtered by the analog post filter.

The reason that I emphasized digital domain because for a modulated digital domain DSD signal (aka DSD file), the noise can only be moved, but not removed. The noise can only be removed by converting it to multibit with a digital low pass filter, and/or of course, in analog domain. If the filter is too weak, the ultrasonic noise in analog domain will fold back to the passband due to intermodulation distortion, the result is rise of noise below 20kHz. So ADC aliasing is not the the main or only reason of the rise of noise below 20kHz.

Thank you.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

That's his marketing tactics, and he's good at it. If you can convince people you believe in what you're doing, you will always find a following.

"In life, nothing is more important than sincerity -- if you can fake that, you've got it made!" -- Groucho Marx

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Here's the bottom line for me as a music lover with only superficial technical knowledge:

1. I have no problem with the unavoidable ultrasonic artifacts in Class D amplifiers. I can't hear them and I know of no instance in which they have damaged speakers. For me, the immense advantages of well-executed Class D amplification far outweigh any such a measurable but inaudible flaw.

2. Somewhat similarly, DSD files contain ultrasonic artifacts that I can't hear -- but the vendors of such files charge extra for them and such files take up several times the disk space on my modest home server. IOW, I don't mind noise I can't hear getting into my speakers and headphones a long as it doesn't harm them -- but I do mind paying for it in real money and storage space for only the most trivial, vaguely described, and entirely subjective (purportedly) audible advantage(s).

FWIW, I will continue buying FLAC downloads and (usually used via eBay) CDs which I immediately rip to FLAC files. YMMV. Peace, love, and beautiful music -- well recorded and enjoyably reproduced within the limits of our respective budgets.

 

[DSJR]

Weeee'll, Paul just explained even vinyl sounds better than DSD, so that settles it.

How can he say vinyl's 'better' when he is stood/sat in the studio listening to the performance being recorded and then the playback (which ought to be identical to the live feed if they've done it right). has he ever had his recordings then butchered and cut to acetate, let alone played back on a typical turntable system?

I appreciate pals who tell me they prefer the 'sound' of vinyl to digital (I dislike it and have had arguments about it in the past), but these so-called 'experts' really need to have done proper comparisons as I've done (t'was something of an epiphany for me comparing directly) otherwise they'll continue the brainwashing to their faithful. I thought the acetate played back well (the first and only time it'd sound so good) in the system we used, but the vinyl discs made previously from other acetates cut on the same system...

I think i can say the above as there are far more experienced mastering (and cutting?) engineers here who can put me bang to rights if I have it wrong.

 

[Geert]

How can he say vinyl's 'better' when he is stood/sat in the studio listening to the performance being recorded and then the playback (which ought to be identical to the live feed if they've done it right).

You need to understand Paul is following a "fake it till you make it" approach. He never did any studio or mastering work, the Octave studio is not in production yet. In the best case he was allow to peek trough a porthole in the control room door during recording.

 

[DWI]

How can he say vinyl's 'better' when he is stood/sat in the studio listening to the performance being recorded and then the playback (which ought to be identical to the live feed if they've done it right). has he ever had his recordings then butchered and cut to acetate, let alone played back on a typical turntable system?

I appreciate pals who tell me they prefer the 'sound' of vinyl to digital (I dislike it and have had arguments about it in the past), but these so-called 'experts' really need to have done proper comparisons as I've done (t'was something of an epiphany for me comparing directly) otherwise they'll continue the brainwashing to their faithful. I thought the acetate played back well (the first and only time it'd sound so good) in the system we used, but the vinyl discs made previously from other acetates cut on the same system...

I think i can say the above as there are far more experienced mastering (and cutting?) engineers here who can put me bang to rights if I have it wrong.

I thought Paul McGowan was spot on. It makes no real sense, but well mastered analogue vinyl gives me goosebumps more than digital. There’s no denying less noise, distortion etc., he says so, it’s just how it is. It’s not an all-analogue thing because my system is one that does A/D and D/A conversion. It’s just one of life’s technical unknowns and I don’t suppose those of us who listen to a lot of vinyl really care for any explanations.

 

[pkane]

I thought Paul McGowan was spot on. It makes no real sense, but well mastered analogue vinyl gives me goosebumps more than digital. There’s no denying less noise, distortion etc., he says so, it’s just how it is. It’s not an all-analogue thing because my system is one that does A/D and D/A conversion. It’s just one of life’s technical unknowns and I don’t suppose those of us who listen to a lot of vinyl really care for any explanations.

Once you figure out how to objectively measure goosebumps, come back and post the details. Until then, your goosebumps are of no consequence to anyone remotely interested in understanding the technology and how and why things work.

 

[DWI]

Once you figure out how to objectively measure goosebumps, come back and post the details. Until then, your goosebumps are of no consequence to anyone remotely interested in understanding the technology and how and why things work.

I get a regular diet of goosebumps from live performance (very rarely is the sound electrically amplified), and quite often a tingling sensation down my spine. I get something of that sensation listening to vinyl replay more so than digital streaming.

I really couldn't care less whether my goosebumps are of any consequence to anyone else or not. I certainly won't deny myself the pleasure just because I don't understand the technology or some people come up with measurements that they think contradict my experience.

All Mr McGowan does is describe a common experience that so far defies scientific explanation. He's not being an expert, he's just agreeing that he has the same experience as the person who emailed him. As I do, as loads of people do.

 

[pkane]

I get a regular diet of goosebumps from live performance (very rarely is the sound electrically amplified), and quite often a tingling sensation down my spine. I get something of that sensation listening to vinyl replay more so than digital streaming.

I really couldn't care less whether my goosebumps are of any consequence to anyone else or not. I certainly won't deny myself the pleasure just because I don't understand the technology or some people come up with measurements that they think contradict my experience.

All Mr McGowan does is describe a common experience that so far defies scientific explanation. He's not being an expert, he's just agreeing that he has the same experience as the person who emailed him. As I do, as loads of people do.

You're posting about your goosebumps on a public forum. Therefore, you do care enough to share this information with others, your statement that you 'couldn't care less' is simply not true or else you wouldn't be posting this. Feel free to enjoy whatever you want, but your claim of 'common experience' doesn't defy anything in science. In fact, it's easily explained by science. Just because you chose to ignore science and put your faith into 'common experience', doesn't alter reality or facts.

 

[DWI]

You're posting about your goosebumps on a public forum. Therefore, you do care enough to share this information with others, your statement that you 'couldn't care less' is simply not true or else you wouldn't be posting this. Feel free to enjoy whatever you want, but your claim of 'common experience' doesn't defy anything in science. In fact, it's easily explained by science. Just because you chose to ignore science and put your faith into 'common experience', doesn't alter reality or facts.

I never chose to ignore the science, I never engaged in whatever the science is in the first place. It's not necessary, just as it's not necessary to know how to cook to enjoy a good meal in a restaurant. Whether other people enjoy that restaurant is of no concern to me either, but it's nice to know that people do.

 

[pkane]

I never chose to ignore the science, I never engaged in whatever the science is in the first place. It's not necessary, just as it's not necessary to know how to cook to enjoy a good meal in a restaurant. Whether other people enjoy that restaurant is of no concern to me either, but it's nice to know that people do.

Nobody denies your right to enjoy what you like. But as soon as you start making claims about science, such as "a common experience that so far defies scientific explanation", then you should at least be knowledgeable about this science, and be prepared to be challenged by others who are.