Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[Spocko]

2) We always talk of the extra over 22KHz but isn't the real point of high res to give finer gradations in the audio band?

That's always been my assumption too!

 

[anmpr1]

Why bother when you can purchase first rate talent and performances of the same music, and sometimes with better sound to boot; Janos Starker on Mercury Living Presence for instance?

When 'audiophile' recordings first hit the street, or at least when I first recall them, you had MFSL half speed masters, and direct to disk represented by Sheffield, Umbrella, Crystal Clear and some others. Crystal Clear not only used direct to disk, but cut at 45 rpm. Often you had to buy them in hi-fi salons, as major retailers didn't stock them, for whatever reason.

Back then, there was a real need for it, because a lot of the product coming from the major labels was very poor in the QC department. DGG, RCA, and CBS had world class artists, but bottom of the barrel pressings. CBS had the moniker, 'cost before sound'.

With the exception of Mobile Fidelity (who used established artist's tapes), most DD records featured second-rate performances. So, you mostly bought the record for the sonics. To show off your system. Slumming the boutique salons, you heard Amanda McBroom... all the time. Unless they were playing that drum record. And with that, Sheffield couldn't even afford to hire Hal Blaine!

However it was, something like this--average artist with questionable recording technique? Doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[Elephen]

Or you like a certain mastering and the DSD format itself isn't actually a factor.

Of course, you might be right. The DSD version of Willie Nelson’s “Stardust” album wasn’t a big improvement, if any, over the CD version. In most cases, however, I don’t have a CD or PCM version of my DSD albums, so I can’t compare the formats.

 

[Herbert]

Things really "improved" since January 1984...
Joe Jackson's "Body and Soul", also one of the early CD-pressings

 

[dadregga]

Have you seen such a filter setting in a stand alone DAC? I have not. All their filter settings apply to PCM only. In addition, there is not one sacd player which filters down to 24 Khz which is what you need here.

Most DACs have a DSD filter for getting rid of the hump - here's the Topping E30 manual. It only goes down to 39khz, which is still pretty high.

Roon et al allow filters down to 25khz.

But most of the DSD standalone DACs (AKM, etc) do filter DSD by default - just maybe not low enough to get rid of ALL the HF noise.

The Octave DSD recordings have a pretty "early" hump as well.

 

[Mnyb]

SACD/DSD was originally marketed as method of providing a superior sound to 44.1/16 while keeping the cost of of the DAC in an affordable price range. It was an argument that had merit at the time but the time of DSD has long passed.

Except it barely, provided better than CD anyway and most music on SACD where sourced from PCM anyway.
Imho it was mostly Sony offering “ security by obscurity “ thier cd patents where running out and nobody could rip an SACD back then, I’ve used a music server since early 2000 .

The interesting proposition was discreet multichannel.

You could also get that via DVDA which I picked , this format is also dead

 

[H-713]

Paul has a video and says that he is having a custom DSD compatible mixer made that will replace the Studer. He likes the Studer a lot but all of his engineers and friends have been telling him that it is not up to current standards, it is just way too old technology. He is spending serious money to try to work around the problem of using DSD and then turning it into a product for sale. He is in effect spending or wasting his kids inheritance in a huge way! He has fantastic ideas of getting money to the musicians, but the implementation is what is hard as he is bucking the entire audio world. He just doesn't have that much money. It would take a Sony, Apple or Google to fund it correctly.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I really don't think Paul is doing this project for the money. I think he's doing it because he really wants to do it, and he's trying to figure out a way to make it be only a minor financial burden rather than a massive financial burden.

If he wants to play with DSD, well, that's his own choice. Maybe it'll work out well, maybe not, but we all have pet projects. Or at least, most of us nerds do.

 

[RichB]

Mr. McGowan's "Hi-Fi Family" -- or, perhaps more accurately, his "High End Cult" -- went simply ga-ga over this offering in the comments under this U-Toob video from last year.

Very nice bathroom sound. I don't even like the sound of conversations in this video.

Here is our version:

The rugs and plant control some resonances but, it is the Patriots jacket that adds that certain je ne sais quoi.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

DSD is such a useless format in that it’s actually not theoretically possible to do any kind of post production in that format . You must convert to PCM and do your stuff and then back to DSD this limits the artistic expression that’s is the point of the whole musical endeavour in the first place ?

Even the industry creates a lot of fud around this and use terms as DXD , DXD is just a very high sample rate PCM format

And to compound the issue if you have room EQ or bass management ( or headphone EQ ), which are necessary for hifi sound , gues what you back to pcm again

So the only practical application for DSD is to record already made analog recordings or the “direct to disc” style one take affair acoustical music with severe limits to its production.
And the data can’t be manipulated during playback?

A side effect of the DSD implementation on many systems is that it provides direct path without any additional processing. That is not to say that it matters, it just is.

- Rich

 

[Mnyb]

Also let us just stop fretting over digital delivery formats

It’s utterly unimportant in the big picture.

1. if the record is good it’s good

The studio may choose to peddle their ware in some format that’s :

2. Better than human hearing anyway .
3. Better than the recordings intrinsic qualities .

The sound of the actual recordings and it production values trumps all concerns about delivery formats.
Example when you can find a record sounding better on vinyl due to mastering differences.
And vinyl is a format with inescapable problems you hear all the time and still due to mastering fluster cucks it can still be the prefered version.

This obsession with delivery format is like your kids playing with the box instead of the gift

 

[TheBatsEar]

A side effect of the DSD implementation on many systems is that it provides direct path without any additional processing. That is not to say that it matters, it just is.

- Rich

Maybe we should filter this crap out in the preamp and poweramp. Like martian source packets in internet routers.

 

[RichB]

24/44.1 will capture all humanly-audible sound frequencies while 24/48 gives you more of a safety margin against aliasing artifacts created when the signal is band limited.

To me this is the most likely influence on sound from higher bitrates.
Many recordings are horribly compressed and poorly mastered.

Obviously, very few can hear above 20kHz so any audible difference is from artifacts that can include, aliasing artifacts or distortions added by the playback chain modulating into the audible range.

Margin is good so 24/48 is a decent choice, as is 18/48 which is better than anything MQA produces.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

HD Audio is a not bad thing, but it is the wrong thing.

High Definition audio should be about mastering to provide best practices for compression, digital compression, digital clipping avoidance. Digital recordings cab be analyzed and characterized. The most notable example is the loudness wars database.
Even this one metric is a decent start.

There are plenty of sites telling us the size of the container and very little about what it contains. Why should anyone buy a 12 oz soda delivered in a 32 ounce container?
Yet, we have that choice and they wont even disclose the usable data for their offerings.

Real quality metrics are desperately needed, not larger and oddly shaped packaging.
It would be nice if audio followed video and offered HDR (High Dynamic Range) music.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

Maybe we should filter this crap out in the preamp and poweramp. Like martian source packets in internet routers.

Some do, but the point may still be valid that 48kHz provides margin for the playback system to avoid artifacts while processing.

There have been test files where folks can correctly identify the difference between a 44.1 and 96kHz test files. This is evidence that there was difference in this specific playback system. That difference could be a better rendition of the recording (for some reason) or artifacts that represent a poorer rendition.

These are the only rational choices since humans cannot hear these frequencies. Humans hearing ultrasonic frequencies is illogical as a benefit of HD Audio.

- Rich

 

[Dennis_FL]

You can still download MusicScope and use it without a license. The company has folded, so it's not like you steal from them.

Best Open Source Sound/Audio Software 2024

Compare the best free open source Sound/Audio Software at SourceForge. Free, secure and fast Sound/Audio Software downloads from the largest Open Source applications and software directory

sourceforge.net

Mac version (DMG) doesn't work with my Mac....Windows (EXE) Works fine

 

[audioholic63]

Why bother when you can purchase first rate talent and performances of the same music, and sometimes with better sound to boot; Janos Starker on Mercury Living Presence for instance?

The Bach Suites for Cello are the stuff of obsessive dreams. You almost cannot have too many including multiple cycles by Maestro Starker. Violin, Viola, Bass...alternative transcriptions abound.

 

[nikosidis]

Octave records:
The recordings go 1 octave higher

If you seen the move "Spinal Tap" his amp got to 11. It is 1 louder

BS audio is like a comedy.

Looking forward to what comes next

Graveyard records from BS audio.
Music for the dead

 

[beagleman]

That's always been my assumption too!

I have seen it "explained" that way many times, the "more resolution" aspect, but fortunately it is simply not true.

All the extra "resolution" is actually just lowering the noise floor, or increasing the dynamic range down further. But that extra resolution is all used in the nether regions of sound, that we can either barely hear, OR, equipment noise and mic noise or room noise, simply overwhelm it.

Kind of like having an analog clock with a "hand" that shows hundredths of a second. Yes it is far more resolving than a normal second hand ticking away, but in practice is useless...

 

[Lambda]

. No need to make assumptions. Nyquist theorem sets the limits on bandwidth, Bit depth sets the limit on dynamic range, those two concept don't interfere or are dependant, they are just both true, the Nyquist theorem don't assume unlimited dynamic range, it's simply not what it was demonstrating.

If you have low resolution sampling the quantitation error can be at higher frequency than your band limited signal.

Hence, my earlier comment about 24/48 providing an adequate safety margin against aliasing artifacts.

I would go with a bigger safety margin of 96 or 192khz. when ever i have the option.
But in generals is 48khz is ok for playback. 4khz of stop band is still a non trivial filter but luckily this days we can do it in software

 

[PeteL]

If you have low resolution sampling the quantitation error can be at higher frequency than your band limited signal.

Maybe but can you explain what you mean with a concrete example? Quantization error, at least typically, is noise, it follows a normal Gaussian curve, as most thing random do and should not be "frequency" dependant or occur at specific "higher"? frequency, but maybe I did not get what you are saying exactly. Can you explain a bit?