Clearly, you don't have the foggiest clue about the Music Hall DAC 25.3.
"Lock: locks at input audio bit rate and sampling rate (upsampling off - bypasses SRC4192)"
Let's repeat that in case you didn't get it the first time: upsampling off
An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz
- Thread starter doctor fuse
- Start date
"Lock: locks at input audio bit rate and sampling rate (upsampling off - bypasses SRC4192)"
Let's repeat that in case you didn't get it the first time: upsampling off
You cannot turn off the oversampling filter that's built into the PCM1796 DAC chip, that's the cruel reality of Delta-Sigma converters.
I don't believe, I read the specs. You can buy into marketing BS as much as you want. If you want "native" the only way to accomplish it for real is a R2R DAC w/o digital filtering.
I'm delighted you have now come to that conclusion.
I named three, but the Steely Dan recordings are also not natively high resolution digital recordings. Any answer over zero invalidates the bogus test.
Would have been? What does that mean to you when it was recorded in 2000 using the technology available at the time? Do tell of the high res format used in 2000.
I thought the comparison was between multiple digital formats.
Do review my previous post where I've listed a few and with this post have listed more. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the answer should have been : NONE.
Comparing Redbook resolution to Redbook resolution. Brilliant!
Feel free to speculate as you choose in the absence of knowledge.
Extremely high sample rates? Perhaps you are unaware of DXD. And as I've previously documented, the "measurable differences" are virtually non-existent. Did you follow my link?
Indeed I would not since they employ cheap op amp analog stages.
Wow, seriously? DVD audio came out in 2000 and SACD came out in 1999. Recording studios had high res recording capabilities years before the general population had access to these formats! The first 96/24 recordings were made in 1996.
Anyway, I think it was totally valid to include releases of analogue recordings for the reasons I gave.
I know the recording scene in Boston and Soundmirror would have been the obvious choice for their study and the speakers fit the description. It's a guess but an educated one.
So believe as you wish. I have a performance to practice for...
Patricia Barber's Nightclub recording was:
"Recorded and mixed at "Chicago Recording Company" Studio 4, May 15-19, 2000.
Mastered at 24-Bit resolution from analog sources at "Foothill Digital", New York City."
Not natively SACD.
So? Like I said, still high res in my book. They transfer quite well. And when SACD first came out there was no native editing or processing. It was converted to PCM and then converted back to DSD. It wasn't until later in Pyramix that you could edit natively.
I'll try one last time. The PCM1796 chip your DAC is based on has a built in oversampling filter, at least 8x. You cannot turn it off. What you can turn off is the SRC4192 ASRC, this reduces the overall oversampling rate that is the product of the OS done in ASRC and in the DAC chip, but you're left with at least 8x oversampling.
RGA
Super Member
All DAC designers use measurements and by the way all dac designers can make bomb proof ultra excellent measuring DACs because all they would have to do is buy one and reverse engineer it. Jim Austin of Stereophile insinuated that Benchmark designs to get the best possible meausurement without listening to the products that they sell. Other companies can make such a thing and then listen and say - well that sounds bad. Let's try again and again and again and again and they discover that "unfortunately" the best sound comes from doing A, B, and C which makes the measurements look worse but the device makes music sound much better.
And while the measurement result may lose them some business with the magazine shopper and graph gurus - they will gain more when people sit down and actually listen and compare in the same room at the same time. The manufacturer's job is to deal with the measurements. They are responsible for making the first product and the 500th product off the assembly line to sound/measure the same.
I never said the manufacturer doesn't need measurements - the end user though should be able to "listen" and evaluate without the need whatsoever to see any measurement or graph on any part of the system.
If you need to see the graph to determine if something sounds elite or not then you need a different hobby.
When I began seriously evaluating stereos - I sat shut my eyes and listened - detemined if the system had the overall Gestalt/Goosebump/something-something factor of the music being played. If yes - the system is a winner if not it's not. Then over the years looking at notes taken certain generalities became apparent as to what actually sounded the best. Generalities - NOT absolutes as there would be some exceptions.
With digital in the mid 2000s it became apparent that NOS at $3k was trouncing $10k-$20k players of the oversampling upsampling variety. And some other generalities were kicking in with no-feedback amps SS/tube versus high feedback amps and the size and shape and efficiency of loudspeakers.
Some of these generalities were confirmed again recently covering an audio show recently where I listened and selected a room as one of the best three rooms. I chose the room first and THEN discovered that the DAC was a NOS tube DAC from Border Patrol. Coincidence? Perhaps but 2 other rooms in the top 3 also used NOS DACs. All three rooms used completely different loudspeakers and amplifiers as well. So the source kind of matters.
These rooms that also had hi-resolution computer audio from a computer also all sounded worse than when the rooms played a CD in a CD transport - granted all three used very good transports but still. These experiences indicate support for my previously held generalizations though.
Perhaps I am more focusing (and not in the spirit of the initial post) on the quality of the DACs and should be focused on the hi-res recording or something. But if a DAC that downcoverts to 16/44 can sound better than an equally expensive DAC playing 24/192 then it could be possible for a converter to sound better converting 24/192 to 24/96. Maybe not in the same machine but it would seem possible. Which brings us back to the quality of the analog output stage. The computer chip computer buffs may be good at the computer chip stuff - but may not be audiophiles or know how to actually get the "analog" part of the machine to sound decent.
What I don't understand is the need for some to attempt to *prove* others wrong when they don't have the foggiest clue as to what our experiences are.
And they don't even acknowledge evidence that is contrary to their doctrine.
What I don't understand is the need for some to attempt to *prove* others wrong when they don't have the foggiest clue as to what our experiences are.
And they don't even acknowledge evidence that is contrary to their doctrine.
Amen
It's like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.
What I don't understand is the need for some to attempt to *prove* others wrong when they don't have the foggiest clue as to what our experiences are.
And they don't even acknowledge evidence that is contrary to their doctrine.
The short time I have been reading and learning here I have noticed a lot of that. I run into these types all the time at my 9-5 with EE/ME's. How dare us lowly layman question professional Engineers/Musicians/EE's that frequent this forum. Once you realize there is no way you can "hear" as good as they you guys will be better off.
What I don't understand is the need for some to attempt to *prove* others wrong when they don't have the foggiest clue as to what our experiences are.
And they don't even acknowledge evidence that is contrary to their doctrine.
Funny, I feel the same about your view! I am going by the science.
Yes, based on the study you linked to (I finally got to read it), there is some evidence that some people may be able to hear the difference between 96k and 44.1.
But the main point in this thread is about sample rates higher than 96. The two studies in question that are being discussed cast doubts on whether trained listeners can distinguish between high res or low res (referring to sample rates). and it seems that they are best able to distinguish the difference when it is downsampled and only with a great deal of effort and concentration. Also, the problem with the study you cited is it didn't involve a very large sample group so I would like to see the study repeated. Also, I'd like to see several different listening examples that are downsampled with different programs.
In any event, if only the most trained listeners have tremendous difficulty being able to name which is the 96k and which is the 44.1k then what about telling the difference between 96 and 192? There is no evidence that anyone can do this at all. On top of this, I cited two authorities on the subject, Dan Lavry and Benchmark, both of which say that going above 96k results in poorer performance of converters. If people can hear the difference, it would most likely be that they find the added distortion pleasing in some way.
You put all of this together and it looks to me that the whole ultra high sample rate push is just marketing hype without any basis. How is this view religious??
Last edited:
Come now. That is an absurd comparison.
I have a lot of recordings I have done at high samples rates (well 88.2 and 96) including solo cello, jazz, vocal, etc. and would find it a blast to see if anyone can hear the difference.
Actually, the study was between 44.1 and 88.2 of the same content.
Which is curious why you introduced the M&M study which discounts all high resolution formats.
But they are successful in that process:
"Furthermore, our findings show that listeners were more sensitive to differences between files recorded at 88.2 kHz and their 44.1 kHz down-sampled version, than to differences between files recorded at different sample rates."
More sensitive, not insensitive.
Agreed and if you recall, I've already commented on the diminishing returns thing. The 192 is worse, however, is by miniscule amounts as I have also observed. Remember the seven ten-thousandths of one percent thing and my question to you?
That is not the commentary to which I refer. Return to post 45. And droning on about minute distortion differences. I've asked several questions of you that remain unanswered. Not sure why you have dodged them.
