Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[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.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Whew am I exhausted! I just finished reading this entire thread (took about three hours, but I’m retired, so… )

I see near the end here that Miska was banned from this post. That is both unfortunate and telling. In any case, I have thoughts. This is my first visit to this site, which I realize will result in my thoughts being dismissed by many. That’s fine. And obviously I have no clue about the historical relationships between some of you. I was doing some DSD research and ended up here.

The first thing I’ll say is that throughout this thread there were calls for staying on topic. Well, to stay on topic, the topic must be clear and the title of the post is most definitely not the real topic, in my opinion. In fact, it took hundreds of posts to get to the heart of the matter:

Amir, post #822

“I reviewed content produced by a small studio that raves about DSD64 being a great format. I showed objectively that it doesn't comply with what people think is "high-res" in the way it pumps so much noise above [the] audio band. And with it, inflates the file size for which you actually pay more than the CD.”

Thus, Amir’s contentions are:

1. DSD “pumps so much noise above [the] audio band.”
2. Creates files sizes that are needlessly large, which
3. Is costing you extra storage space

As someone who listens to SACD, numbers two and three don‘t really interest me, but I find point number one to be quite interesting indeed, and so did Amir, who mentioned the word “noise” many, many times in this thread. Now why would noise in the ultrasonic spectrum matter to music listeners? I can think of only a few reasons:

1. It causes oscillating at the amplification stage
2. It creates issues (somehow?) in the tweeters of your speakers

If neither of these reasons come to fruition (and I’ll note they were barely discussed in this thread of over 1,000 posts) then why would it matter if the files contain ultrasonic noise from the listeners perspective? Not to get all “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there…..” but, I would suggest that it doesn’t.

Just as it doesn’t matter what format you listen to if you can’t tell the difference between an mp3, 44.1, or 44.8. Which many people can’t, and that’s fine. But ok… there is inaudible “extra” stuff. Got it.

And yet, when Miska and KSTR rightly pointed out that there can be filtering/distortion issues with PCM *in the audible range* well…. that just didn’t sit well with folks at all. Same for Miska correctly pointing out that the vast majority of DACs today are using SDM architecture. No one finds that interesting?

So if you want to make the case that DSD is a “scam” because it contains inaudible noise I guess that’s your prerogative but it just seems odd how few people want to talk about the *audible* aspects of PCM/DSD, especially in comparison to PCM’s challenges in the audible spectrum (the lack of which I would submit as a reason many audiophiles enjoy DSD). I have a SACD of the Chicago Symphony Brass in multi-channel DSD and it is one of my most favorite listens. I’m not worried about what I can’t hear, I’m enjoying what I *can* hear, and I’m very glad my old Denon 4520ci can decode it.

Finally, I found it *very* interesting that there was not a single mention of Ed Meitner, who actually *is* addressing the inaudible noise at the amplification stage and <sarcasm> is faintly familiar with DSD</sarcasm>. One wonders if he too would have been blocked had he shown up here to talk about DSD and PCM. Anyway… I personally don’t feel misled by DSD. I’m aware that hi-res PCM recordings can sound just as good, and I’m aware that there are some dog DSD recordings out there. But when done well and *with a great performer/performance* I think it’s superb.

This video might be of interest.

 

[pkane]

Whew am I exhausted! I just finished reading this entire thread (took about three hours, but I’m retired, so… )

I see near the end here that Miska was banned from this post. That is both unfortunate and telling. In any case, I have thoughts. This is my first visit to this site, which I realize will result in my thoughts being dismissed by many. That’s fine. And obviously I have no clue about the historical relationships between some of you. I was doing some DSD research and ended up here.

The first thing I’ll say is that throughout this thread there were calls for staying on topic. Well, to stay on topic, the topic must be clear, and this title of the post is most definitely not the real topic, in my opinion. In fact, it took hundreds of posts to get to the heart of the matter:

Amir, post #822

“I reviewed content produced by a small studio that raves about DSD64 being a great format. I showed objectively that it doesn't comply with what people think is "high-res" in the way it pumps so much noise above [the] audio band. And with it, inflates the file size for which you actually pay more than the CD.”

Thus, Amir’s contentions are:

1. DSD “pumps so much noise above [the] audio band.”
2. Creates files sizes that are needlessly large, which
3. Is costing you extra storage space

As someone who listens to SACD, numbers two and three don‘t really interest me, but I find point number one to be quite interesting indeed, and so did Amir, who mentioned the word “noise” many, many times in this thread. Now why would noise in the ultrasonic spectrum matter to music listeners? I can think of only a few reasons:

1. It causes oscillating at the amplification stage
2. It creates issues (somehow?) in the tweeters of your speakers

If neither of these reasons come to fruition (and I’ll note they were barely discussed in this thread of nearly 1,000 posts) then why would it matter if the files contain ultrasonic noise from the listeners perspective? Not to get all “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there…..” but, I would suggest that it doesn’t.

Just as it doesn’t matter what format you listen to if you can’t tell the difference between an mp3, 44.1, or 44.8. Which many people can’t, and that’s fine. But ok… there is inaudible “extra” stuff. Got it.

And yet, when Miska and KSTR rightly pointed out that there can be filtering/distortion issues with PCM *in the audible range* well…. that just didn’t sit well with folks at all. Same for Miska correctly pointing out that the vast majority of DACs today are using SDM architecture. No one finds that interesting?

So if you want to make the case that DSD is a “scam” because it contains inaudible noise I guess that’s your prerogative but it just seems odd how few people want to talk about the *audible* aspects of PCM/DSD, especially in comparison to PCM’s challenges in the audible spectrum (the lack of which I would submit as a reason many audiophiles enjoy DSD). I have a SACD of the Chicago Symphony Brass in multi-channel DSD and it is one of my most favorite listens. I’m not worried about what I can’t hear, I’m enjoying what I *can* hear, and I’m very glad my old Denon 4520ci can decode it.

Finally, I found it *very* interesting that there was not a single mention of Ed Meitner, who actually *is* addressing the inaudible noise at the amplification stage. One wonders if he too would have been blocked had he shown up here to talk about DSD. Anyway… I personally don’t feel misled by DSD. I’m aware that hi-res PCM recordings can sound just as good, and I’m aware that there are some dog DSD recordings out there. But when done well and *with a great performer/performance* I think it’s superb.

This video might be of interest.

Wait, you've read the whole thread and you missed the fact that this is about the claimed improvements of DSD over PCM as a recording format? Not in a specific DAC or specific player software as Miska keeps claiming, but that DSD is just better and therefore justifies a price premium? None of the points you've raised show that DSD is better than PCM as a recording/file format. Both can be done poorly, both can allow noise and artifacts in the ultrasonic range, DSD actually guarantees it, while PCM does not. PCM can be edited, DSPed and mixed easily, DSD can't. So, what's the advantage of someone buying stereo DSD content and paying a premium for it?

 

[antcollinet]

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.

OK:

• So master to vinyl gives you goosebumps.
• Same master to digital does not.
• Master to vinyl to digital (via your a-d) gives you goosebumps again.

So the possible logical explanations are that the "to vinyl" process changes the music in some way. Which we all know is the noise and distortion characteristic of vinyl recordings. Or the fact that you know you are listening to a vinyl recording changes your perception of it.

You prefer it - it gives you goosebumps - that is fine. But don't fool yourself that there is something magical, that "denies scientific explanation". It doesn't.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Wait, you've read the whole thread and you missed the fact that this is about the claimed improvements of DSD over PCM as a recording format? Not in a specific DAC or specific player software as Miska keeps claiming, but that DSD is just better and therefore justifies a price premium? None of the points you've raised show that DSD is better than PCM as a recording/file format. Both can be done poorly, both can allow noise and artifacts in the ultrasonic range, DSD actually guarantees it, while PCM does not. PCM can be edited, DSPed and mixed easily, DSD can't. So, what's the advantage of someone buying stereo DSD content and paying a premium for it?

“So, what's the advantage of someone buying stereo DSD content and paying a premium for it?”

The advantage is that the listener can enjoy the recording in the format in which it originated. That was said many times in this thread. That’s not such a big deal, is it?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

“So, what's the advantage of someone buying stereo DSD content and paying a premium for it?”

The advantage is that the listener can enjoy the recording in the format in which it originated. That was said many times in this thread. That’s not such a big deal, is it?

Octave Records converts the original DSD into analog in order to perform mixing / EQ, and then re-converts it back to DSD for release. So while it may have originated as a DSD file, it might as well be PCM because it was converted to that format along the way.

Even their new mixing system converts the data into PCM for the mixing process and then re-converts it to DSD.

What on earth is the point? Given that PCM is used along the way, they just as well could just record in PCM in the first place and avoid the quality hit of two conversions.

I can totally understand why Sony came up with DSD, but they conceived it as an archival format. Then the marketeers got wind of it and suddenly DSD is the best thing since sliced bread, and the sound quality is just amazing. That's nonsense and they people involved probably know on some level that its nonsense.

 

[pkane]

“So, what's the advantage of someone buying stereo DSD content and paying a premium for it?”

The advantage is that the listener can enjoy the recording in the format in which it originated. That was said many times in this thread. That’s not such a big deal, is it?

Enjoy it because it's technically superior or because you like the idea? Technical superiority is what's being discussed here, not your preference.

 

[BDWoody]

So if you want to make the case that DSD is a “scam” because it contains inaudible noise...

I don't believe anyone has said that DSD is a scam. No need to try to counter a point that no one is making.

The scam is trying to convince people that it is inherently better than PCM.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Enjoy it because it's technically superior or because you like the idea? Technical superiority is what's being discussed here, not your preference.

Would it not be “technically superior” to listen to a file in its original form? Furthermore, the point made over and over was that the ultrasonic noise in a DSD file was the main issue. Does that make the listening experience inferior? If so, how?

 

[Ricardus]

Whew am I exhausted! I just finished reading this entire thread (took about three hours, but I’m retired, so… )

I see near the end here that Miska was banned from this post. That is both unfortunate and telling. In any case, I have thoughts. This is my first visit to this site, which I realize will result in my thoughts being dismissed by many. That’s fine. And obviously I have no clue about the historical relationships between some of you. I was doing some DSD research and ended up here.

The first thing I’ll say is that throughout this thread there were calls for staying on topic. Well, to stay on topic, the topic must be clear and the title of the post is most definitely not the real topic, in my opinion. In fact, it took hundreds of posts to get to the heart of the matter:

Amir, post #822

“I reviewed content produced by a small studio that raves about DSD64 being a great format. I showed objectively that it doesn't comply with what people think is "high-res" in the way it pumps so much noise above [the] audio band. And with it, inflates the file size for which you actually pay more than the CD.”

Thus, Amir’s contentions are:

1. DSD “pumps so much noise above [the] audio band.”
2. Creates files sizes that are needlessly large, which
3. Is costing you extra storage space

As someone who listens to SACD, numbers two and three don‘t really interest me, but I find point number one to be quite interesting indeed, and so did Amir, who mentioned the word “noise” many, many times in this thread. Now why would noise in the ultrasonic spectrum matter to music listeners? I can think of only a few reasons:

1. It causes oscillating at the amplification stage
2. It creates issues (somehow?) in the tweeters of your speakers

If neither of these reasons come to fruition (and I’ll note they were barely discussed in this thread of over 1,000 posts) then why would it matter if the files contain ultrasonic noise from the listeners perspective? Not to get all “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there…..” but, I would suggest that it doesn’t.

Just as it doesn’t matter what format you listen to if you can’t tell the difference between an mp3, 44.1, or 44.8. Which many people can’t, and that’s fine. But ok… there is inaudible “extra” stuff. Got it.

And yet, when Miska and KSTR rightly pointed out that there can be filtering/distortion issues with PCM *in the audible range* well…. that just didn’t sit well with folks at all. Same for Miska correctly pointing out that the vast majority of DACs today are using SDM architecture. No one finds that interesting?

So if you want to make the case that DSD is a “scam” because it contains inaudible noise I guess that’s your prerogative but it just seems odd how few people want to talk about the *audible* aspects of PCM/DSD, especially in comparison to PCM’s challenges in the audible spectrum (the lack of which I would submit as a reason many audiophiles enjoy DSD). I have a SACD of the Chicago Symphony Brass in multi-channel DSD and it is one of my most favorite listens. I’m not worried about what I can’t hear, I’m enjoying what I *can* hear, and I’m very glad my old Denon 4520ci can decode it.

Finally, I found it *very* interesting that there was not a single mention of Ed Meitner, who actually *is* addressing the inaudible noise at the amplification stage and <sarcasm> is faintly familiar with DSD</sarcasm>. One wonders if he too would have been blocked had he shown up here to talk about DSD and PCM. Anyway… I personally don’t feel misled by DSD. I’m aware that hi-res PCM recordings can sound just as good, and I’m aware that there are some dog DSD recordings out there. But when done well and *with a great performer/performance* I think it’s superb.

This video might be of interest.

Wow.

Another 10 minute old account defending DSD.

Geez I wonder where the originating IP is.

 

[howdoesitsound]

“I don't believe anyone has said that DSD is a scam”

You may be correct, I’ll rephrase. The idea that consumers are being misled about DSD was a frequent claim in this thread. I don’t feel misled.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Wow.

Another 10 minute old account defending DSD.

Geez I wonder where the originating IP is.

Chicagoland!!

I expected that. It’s OK. Enjoy your day.

 

[pkane]

Would it not be “technically superior” to listen to a file in its original form? Furthermore, the point made over and over was that the ultrasonic noise in a DSD file was the main issue. Does that make the listening experience inferior? If so, how?

The reasons for DSD not being superior to PCM have already been enumerated multiple times, including in my answer to your previous post. You can keep claiming you prefer DSD, but you still provide no evidence for its superiority.

 

[BDWoody]

I don’t feel misled.

Neither do people who pay extra for fancy digital cables, expecting them to make their system sound better. Thing is, most will say it did.

 

[Ricardus]

If neither of these reasons come to fruition (and I’ll note they were barely discussed in this thread of over 1,000 posts) then why would it matter if the files contain ultrasonic noise from the listeners perspective? Not to get all “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there…..” but, I would suggest that it doesn’t.

Why would you want a file that was filled with more ultrasonic noise than actual musical content, Paul?

The "It's ultrasonic so we can't hear it" thing doesn't fly when most "audiophiles" typically insist that they can hear the ultrasonics, and if they can't hear them they can "feel them."

When you look at the spectrum of DSD, particularly of this awful release, you see that the ultrasonic noise extends down to the frequency range of where CD bandwidth ends. So you're better off just listening to the CD.

Look at that noise floor. It's laughable.

 

[howdoesitsound]

The reasons for DSD not being superior to PCM have already been enumerated multiple times, including in my answer to your previous post. You can keep claiming you prefer DSD, but you still provide no evidence for its superiority.

Please don’t confuse me with someone who seeks to prove myself right, or you wrong. A couple of people with 10x my knowledge were shot down thoroughly, I won’t get caught up in that. Just made some observations.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Neither do people who pay extra for fancy digital cables, expecting them to make their system sound better. Thing is, most will say it did.

Far more might not admit they hear no difference between mp3 and anything else. I guess if they’re happy they’re happy.

 

[pkane]

Please don’t confuse me with someone who seeks to prove myself right, or you wrong. A couple of people with 10x my knowledge were shot down thoroughly, I won’t get caught up in that. Just made some observations.

I already said, your observation that you like DSD is totally fine. That's your preference, but it says nothing about the technology being superior. This is the discussion you stepped into, so don't chicken out now by hiding behind I "just made some observations" -- support your claims, do some research, come up with some evidence

 

[DSJR]

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.

I tell you what gave me goosebumps - hearing the original 30IPS two track half inch master of a well loved track played back on an ATR 102 (which I gather is a well respected pro tape player/recorder) which played the tape when the record was cut originally. One track made me cry it was so heartfelt and emotional (to me) and the 12" 45rpm single of said track was so bland in comparison, yet the song itself came through emotionally. The experience was so profound it's stayed with me for many many years (I came into the industry using some Dolby A masters played on an adapted (for playback level) Revox A77 into a dedicated Dolby A unit but this one experience was a revelation to me).

Certainly back in analogue days, the album masters I heard had a 'dryness' and 'preciseness' to them (the pro's here will know what I'm effing going on about) which vinyl totally smothered into a kind of 'reverberant soup-like halo' which I gather Fremmer loves and thinks is 'correct.' The Linn LP12 capitalised on this effect, adding some bloom to the bass too and making for a very 'sexy involving' tone to us ignorant subjectivists, but it was wrong as hell in terms of truth to the recording and still is, although the modern hugely silly-priced versions of this player are rather better than they once were, especially in the bass. Sure, I've heard some high end vinyl confections which delineate correctly more than usual and can 'sound' much closer to the original given a good pressing and mastering, but digital usually beats this I found.

You want goose bumps from digital? Get some (active probably) speakers with a proper dynamic range and low colouration rather the the usual neutered overpriced domestic cr@p that dealers try to foist on 'us' for tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. I was able to do this thirty years back and the current versions of said speakers still do it with ease, although other more modern designs may have eclipsed them now for arguably less money (I still have very fond memories of the JBL 4367 dem I attended and still maintain they're reasonably priced for a dealer purchased speaker in the so-called 'high end' domestic market if driven by say, a Quad Artera Stereo or other 606 based model if a used one). One unlikely model which really worked well ina large vaulted ceiling 'barn type' room were the PMC Fact Fenestria's, where the room was large enough to allow the transmission lines to not boom so much and the rest was effortless and VERY LOUD if the amp allowed it. The famous 'Tin Pan Alley' track sounded larger than life, but you were able to feel the 'story' being told in he song which you can't always do in typical domestic systems unless it's the vinyl played on a deck which exaggerates and compresses things too much.

Just my vibes and thoughts here.. Apologies if it's granny sucking eggs to many of you.

 

[howdoesitsound]

I already said, your observation that you like DSD is totally fine. That's your preference, but it says nothing about the technology being superior. This is the discussion you stepped into, so don't chicken out now by hiding behind I "just made some observations" -- support your claims, do some research, come up with some evidence

Can’t imagine I could come up with anything beyond what the two or three guys (and Meitner) have already said. That will have to do….but apparently “debunked” so…