Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[howdoesitsound]

What an interesting group. Sorry man, just an ordinary guy who enjoys audio. Want my mobile?

 

[Geert]

I see near the end here that Miska was banned from this post. That is both unfortunate and telling.

Your statement is also unfortunate and telling.

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.

Let's have a look at an interview with Ed by Stereophile.com:

The only time you want the 1-bit is just at the conversion, at that singularity where analog comes together with digital, because 1-bit doesn't give you any errors. But in the computer as a machine, where you can [do] mathematics and signal processing, SACD is about as alien as it gets. So if you look at the Workstation, they'll convert it to high PCM rate and do the mathematics and signal conversion in PCM, and then convert it back to 1-bit. The only place that matters is right at the conversion point from analog to digital and digital to analog. About the rest, I could care less. The rest doesn't matter. The rest is bits.

Exactly what we've been telling from the start.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Your statement is also unfortunate and telling.



Let's have a look at an interview with Ed by Stereophile.com:



Exactly what we've been telling from the start.

So your position is that the vast majority in this thread agree with Meitner?

 

[Geert]

So your position is that the vast majority in this thread agree with Meitner?

Can you show a substantial amount of people in this thread thinks Delta Sigma conversion is no good? Not that it really matters. We repeatedly said the scope of this topic is DSD as a delivery format, and not DSD as a conversion method or the capabilities of one specific software package.

 

[howdoesitsound]

Can you show a substantial amount of people in this thread thinks Delta Sigma conversion is no good? Not that it really matters. We repeatedly said the scope of this topic is DSD as a delivery format, and not DSD as a conversion method or the capabilities of one specific software package.

OK (bows while walking backwards towards the door), thanks for the clarification.

 

[DWI]

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.

I don’t have any issues with my audio system, none of it was foistered on me by my audio dealer and I very much enjoy listening to digital streams. Vinyl, and it may be the types of music I use it for, has that something extra and that is all Mr McGowan was commenting on. I have used 909 and QMP, excellent value and plenty of power without any noticeable colouration, but less dynamic than Class D done well.

 

[Ricardus]

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)

It is. We have one at our analog studio and an MCI 1/2 inch 2-tk.

 

[JSmith]

It's not necessary, just as it's not necessary to know how to cook to enjoy a good meal in a restaurant.

This analogy falls apart, unless you mean listening to another system that isn't yours or in your home... one needs to know how to cook a meal at home to eat and Uber Eats won't deliver you a transparent audio system.


JSmith

 

[Bruce Morgen]

This analogy falls apart, unless you mean listening to another system that isn't yours or in your home... one needs to know how to cook a meal at home to eat and Uber Eats won't deliver you a transparent audio system.

I think it's pretty clear that "transparent" isn't what some folks are going for, but rather some sort of euphonic experience that elicits a certain visceral response, e.g. "goosebumps."

 

[Bruce Morgen]

A "certain visceral response, e.g. 'goosebumps'" may come from what is described as "transparent", and it may perhaps come from what is described as "euphonic". I can only speak for myself, and for me it comes from recordings that would be described as "transparent". Jim

Fair enough. Me too.

 

[JSmith]

Funny thing is there is nothing euphonic about digital audio formats and certainly nothing to do with DSD/SACD.


JSmith

 

[Rottmannash]

Funny thing is there is nothing euphonic about digital audio formats and certainly nothing to do with DSD/SACD.


JSmith

The last time I listened to a Steely Dan album then the Qobuz version it was startling how flat, dry and uninvolving the vinyl playback was in comparison. I find it hard to believe I ever loved listening to albums...but back then there was a lot of pharmaceuticals involved which may have contributed to the "goosebumps" everyone speaks of. Transparent is the ideal IMO. I finally have it and will probably never listen to an album again. RIP.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Transparent is the ideal IMO.

"Transparent" is another way of saying "high fidelity": "Great faithfulness" to the source material and, implicitly, to the intentions of the creative folks who did the performing, recording, mixing, and mastering. Of course that's an ideal and not an achievable goal given the limitations of even the best transducers -- but it's a worthy ideal that the vinyl and/or vacuum tube "vintage" enthusiasts seem to have abandoned in favor of some sort of nostalgic euphonia fetish.

Start with gear that comes as close to that ideal as one can manage, then season to taste if you so please -- and IMO you can't go wrong.

 

[JSmith]

but it's a worthy ideal that the vinyl and/or vacuum tube "vintage" enthusiasts seem to have abandoned in favor of some sort of nostalgic euphonia fetish.

I don't disagree, however keep in mind some audio enthusiasts (a minority for sure) completely understand the limitations of vinyl and the high harmonic distortion of "colored" tube amps, but own them for a bit of nostalgia or fun. Generally will have a main "transparent" system for high fidelity playback as well. Certainly those that claim these types of products outperform more modern approaches to audio reproduction are kidding themselves.


JSmith

 

[HappyMetalGuy]

Is there a link for downloading MusicScope to use it without a license?
Thanks

 

[maverickronin]

Is there a link for downloading MusicScope to use it without a license?
Thanks

XiVero Audio Tools are free now ( MusicScope, AudioRepair, XiSRC, AMTRA and HPEX)

Hello from France English Description: If you have been a customer of the former XiVero GmbH and if you own corresponding software then you are entitled to download the provided applications. It is not allowed to offer the applications on any other online platform. Use of the software is at...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[HappyMetalGuy]

XiVero Audio Tools are free now ( MusicScope, AudioRepair, XiSRC, AMTRA and HPEX)

Hello from France English Description: If you have been a customer of the former XiVero GmbH and if you own corresponding software then you are entitled to download the provided applications. It is not allowed to offer the applications on any other online platform. Use of the software is at...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Thanks, I already searched the forum, the links provided don't work anymore (or maybe they do and i'm not seeing correctely). Have you try the download yourself? (not just the link).

 

[danadam]

Thanks, I already searched the forum, the links provided don't work anymore (or maybe they do and i'm not seeing correctely). Have you try the download yourself? (not just the link).

See my comment there.

 

[maverickronin]

Thanks, I already searched the forum, the links provided don't work anymore (or maybe they do and i'm not seeing correctely). Have you try the download yourself? (not just the link).

That's weird. It was all there a few months ago. @danadam's link above works for me though.

 

[Head_Unit]

But most "hi-rez" would also have a bit depth of 24 or more, which does give it more amplitude resolution, no?

No. Here's how I think of it, others who answered I'm glad for correction as needed.
- Let's say the player outputs 2 volts. Then I think the smallest bit represents 2/(2^16) = 2/65536 = 0.000030517578125 volts. S/N=96 dB.
- At 24 bits you'd have 2/16777216 = 1.19209289551e-7 volts. Oooh it's way smaller, so more resolution!
But I guess the original 16 bits can encode the amplitude re-creatably within the original 96 dB "perfectly" more or less. All the tinier bits let you do is encode smaller and smaller, i.e. "into the noise floor" kinda sorta, or into tinier sounds for more dynamic range (S/N like 144 dB). I'm vaguely paraphrasing another poster in another thread, echoing snippets I learned in engineering school.

What I still have never seen is a good explanation of what happens if you're running at 96k or even 192k, and don't lowpass filter. Yeah, ultrasonic images wrapping into the audio range, the horror, the horror, do it to Julia! Er, but microphones don't usually pick up much above audio frequencies do they? And do quiet studios really have much ultrasonic noise? Seems to me that there just wouldn't be much to alias in the first place. ????