Freq > 22k are only half the equation. We want to retain the other benefits of high sampling rates.
Guess hi-rez files are not for everyone.
Weiss Saracon
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
Freq > 22k are only half the equation. We want to retain the other benefits of high sampling rates.
Guess hi-rez files are not for everyone.
Part of it also comes back to the filters applied Tim, and whether you do think people are sensitive to the different types and this being one of the reasons of a listener's long term (maybe even short term if product bias excluded) preference difference between apodising, IIR (used by latest Naim DACs) and more traditional ringing steep FIR filter, this is rather anecdotal and I am not sure there is enough study data to know for sure.
It comes down to if you feel that the different filter types and implementation is inconsequential or not, nothing wrong with either view currently IMO but would be nice if we had more data rather than relying upon anecdotal.
I tend to feel something may be happening to our preference relating to the filters, including the slow roll-off where the FR slowly drops albeit usually to an average of only -0.3db at 20khz. (some would say this is excessive difference but then the counter case is this is 20khz and way outside our most sensitive part of hearing).
Cheers
Orb
I would go with -0.3db being somewhere between insignificant and inaudible until someone is willing to do the testing to prove otherwise. There are far too many things to worry about that matter, Like the fact that my wife removed the storage shelves full of papers and office supplies from the back wall of my listening room the other day, and now my diffusers are gone.
Tim
Non-privileged members are not supposed to moderate, but I can not avoid observing we have several experts posting very interesting and unique opinions on this thread about HiRez formats - IMHO it will be a sad thing if it gets transformed in a discussion about "you still have not proved what you can hear" and transform it in a discussion between pro and against HiRez formats supporters.
Apologies to moderators and those who may not agree with my posting.
Apologies to moderators and those who may not agree with my posting.
Sorry Microstrip,
was trying to provide a bit of balance to the anecdotal evidence of preference relating to filters and this can be useful for hi-rez (higher sampling rate) native music files.
The challenge is that there is no consensus and not enough data to make satisfactory conclusions either way, but as it stands anecdotally there looks to be possibly a benefit of the higher sampling rate and also bits.
Thanks
Orb
was trying to provide a bit of balance to the anecdotal evidence of preference relating to filters and this can be useful for hi-rez (higher sampling rate) native music files.
The challenge is that there is no consensus and not enough data to make satisfactory conclusions either way, but as it stands anecdotally there looks to be possibly a benefit of the higher sampling rate and also bits.
Thanks
Orb
And I'm not trying to go there. But the simple fact of the matter is that a roll-off above 22k happens outside of the range of human hearing and filtering at -0.3db probably is as well. There may be other reasons why hi-res is distinctly superior to redbook, but these are not them. I would hope that our professionals, especially, would want to have their opinions considered in a realistic human context.
Tim
The issue with filters is that filter problems can extend a decade a more below the cut-off frequency, so a 20 kHz filter can cause bad stuff to happen at 10 kHz and below. By increasing the sampling rate, the filter cut-offs can be moved up and their roll-off lower so there are fewer audible effects at (much) lower frequencies. One of the biggest problems with early CD players was not so much the DACs themselves as the filters after them... They introduced marked phase shift in the upper midrange.
Thats what I thought Don,
but there are quite a few on the other side of the fence (and includes DSP related engineers) who think those filters do not cause any problems, and if they are identified or preference comes into it, then it must be due to frequency roll-off.
One of those debates that I suspect will never be resolved to a satisfactory conclusion, especially when it has digital engineers on either side.
I remember quite awhile ago, Stereophile had one of their reference articles where the author wrote their own filters based on real-world theory and examples, and provided anecdotal listening experience on the differences.
But, thats it, unfortunately it is anecdotal or theory that may suggest what you say or potentially other differences, which is not enough for others who are skeptics.
But this is one of the reasons for oversampling implemented internally on CD players/DACs.
Cheers
Orb
but there are quite a few on the other side of the fence (and includes DSP related engineers) who think those filters do not cause any problems, and if they are identified or preference comes into it, then it must be due to frequency roll-off.
One of those debates that I suspect will never be resolved to a satisfactory conclusion, especially when it has digital engineers on either side.
I remember quite awhile ago, Stereophile had one of their reference articles where the author wrote their own filters based on real-world theory and examples, and provided anecdotal listening experience on the differences.
But, thats it, unfortunately it is anecdotal or theory that may suggest what you say or potentially other differences, which is not enough for others who are skeptics.
But this is one of the reasons for oversampling implemented internally on CD players/DACs.
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
Piramix v. Saracon
I have compared the same recording by Channel Classics Records. Three recordings, in fact (Beethoven 7th, Mahler 4th and Mozart Sinf. Concertante), same 24/192 depth.
First recording as the previous conversion (Pyramix) and current conversion (Saracon).
Saracon conversion sounds way better (to my ears, in my system). Using Linn Klimax DS as digital source. Difference is not subtle.
I have compared the same recording by Channel Classics Records. Three recordings, in fact (Beethoven 7th, Mahler 4th and Mozart Sinf. Concertante), same 24/192 depth.
First recording as the previous conversion (Pyramix) and current conversion (Saracon).
Saracon conversion sounds way better (to my ears, in my system). Using Linn Klimax DS as digital source. Difference is not subtle.
How did you get the DSD files? Which of the 3 Pyramix filter systems did you use and which of the 3 Noise shaping/Dithering algorithms did you use? Did you try all and compare? There are 2 that are better than Saracon.
I did not the conversion, Channel Classics Records (Jared Sacks) did.
The “old” ones where downloaded from Linn Records store long ago. The “new” ones from Channel Classics Records Site.
Having heard a noticeable difference (unexpected, since it was supposed to be the same), I asked Jared Sacks. He told me about the different DSD to PCM conversion.
It is a long story. First I noticed new Channel Classics sounded better than I remembered (same brand, not same recording), later I downloaded one I already had to perform a reliable comparison, then I asked Jared, then came the others, … and finally we performed a blind test with a friend, using the mentioned recordings.
We should ask Jared Sacks at Channel Classics about Pyramix filters.
The “old” ones where downloaded from Linn Records store long ago. The “new” ones from Channel Classics Records Site.
Having heard a noticeable difference (unexpected, since it was supposed to be the same), I asked Jared Sacks. He told me about the different DSD to PCM conversion.
It is a long story. First I noticed new Channel Classics sounded better than I remembered (same brand, not same recording), later I downloaded one I already had to perform a reliable comparison, then I asked Jared, then came the others, … and finally we performed a blind test with a friend, using the mentioned recordings.
We should ask Jared Sacks at Channel Classics about Pyramix filters.
Hi Bruce, I wonder if these are the ones used in PentaTone and Channel Classics at HDTracks.
PentaTone are very, very good recordings, as well as Channel Classics.
Channel Classics from HDTracks sound very well IMHO, different from the ones at Channel Classics records, but both are good. Previous ones at linn Records where not.
PentaTone at HDTracks are better than the ones (192kHz) you can purchase at HIRESAUDIO (Germany).
These are only my oppinions in my system, to my ears.
I appeciate any feedback so I can learn more on this amazyng HiRes world.
After all when someone stops learning begins to die.
This thead is a couple of months old but it is a fascinating topic. Has anyone tried the PHILIPS ProTECH Audio Format Converter software for DSD to PCM and had favorable sonic results? The software is a little dated (2004) but it is written by Philips which I think co-invented the SACD so I am wondering if the results with the software would be on a par with Saracon or Pyramix and so forth -both very expensive choices.
My alternative is to use the foobar dsd converter add-in which, from what I have read, is not very good.
I am archiving my SACD's for backup AND copying to an NAS for streaming in my home. I would like to get the absolute closest duplication of the DSD but can't justify the US$2K for pro software packages out there. I only have a hundred or so SACD's and most of them are multichannel.
Since there are no players or streamers on the market at present (that I know about) that will stream DSD or ISO rips of SACD, I need to get the DSD into flac and want the best conversion I can afford. Using a PS3 and SACD Ripper, I can extract the ISO and DSD files now - just need to get into FLAC.
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
My alternative is to use the foobar dsd converter add-in which, from what I have read, is not very good.
I am archiving my SACD's for backup AND copying to an NAS for streaming in my home. I would like to get the absolute closest duplication of the DSD but can't justify the US$2K for pro software packages out there. I only have a hundred or so SACD's and most of them are multichannel.
Since there are no players or streamers on the market at present (that I know about) that will stream DSD or ISO rips of SACD, I need to get the DSD into flac and want the best conversion I can afford. Using a PS3 and SACD Ripper, I can extract the ISO and DSD files now - just need to get into FLAC.
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
I'll have to look up the Phillips ProTech software. It's probably on par with the Sony Bit Mapping converter that I use with Sonoma.
There are actually a couple players that will stream DSD files. You can use Pure Music, Sygnalist, Audirvana? and I'm using Merging's Emotion. All can stream DSD via USB.
The least expensive converter that actually sounds great is the Korg AudioGate. You can get it free if you have a Twitter acct. Just click on THIS website.
There are actually a couple players that will stream DSD files. You can use Pure Music, Sygnalist, Audirvana? and I'm using Merging's Emotion. All can stream DSD via USB.
The least expensive converter that actually sounds great is the Korg AudioGate. You can get it free if you have a Twitter acct. Just click on THIS website.
Thanks.
I have a lot of MCH SACD's and I think Audiogate only does stereo thus the reason I was leaning towards the Philips software. I obtained a trial copy of the Philips software but have no clue how to set it up (dithering, noise curves, etc.). I see that the Philips software is now owned by Sonic Studio and marketed under the name of nexStage AFC and sells for about the same price as the Saracon software so I can only assume that it must be pretty good at converting the DSD to PCM. However, it looks like it will only do one file at a time rather than groups.
I have a lot of MCH SACD's and I think Audiogate only does stereo thus the reason I was leaning towards the Philips software. I obtained a trial copy of the Philips software but have no clue how to set it up (dithering, noise curves, etc.). I see that the Philips software is now owned by Sonic Studio and marketed under the name of nexStage AFC and sells for about the same price as the Saracon software so I can only assume that it must be pretty good at converting the DSD to PCM. However, it looks like it will only do one file at a time rather than groups.
Any of those work with a NAS device as a home streamer server (like Twonky server)? Would send the DSD via ethernet to be sent to my Oppo player and then to my Denon receiver as raw DSD for decoding by the Denon. I think most of those NAS devices are Linux based as they are basically miniature servers.
Thanks - that is what I suspected.
Regarding the Philips converter, I am not a pro by any means so I have no clue as to how to configure it for simple DSD->PCM conversion, dff(dsdiff) file to aiff file.....
Main questions are:
1. Dithering (Triangular, None)
2. Quantization (Truncation, Rounding)
3. Noise Shaper Filter (none, Hearing Curve 1, Hearing Curve 2)
4. Should I use 88.2 or 176.4?
5. 24 bits or 32 bits?
6. Any dB changes (amplification +/- dB)?
6. Any Time Control added?
Any clue what I should set these values to?
I read something on HDTracks website about needing a filter to limit high frequency noise when converting from DSD to PCM ??? Is this the Noise Shaper Filter referred to in the program? The program only offers the noise shaper filter options when selecting 44.1 khz so am I correct in assuming that at higher sample rate conversions the program will automatically set a high freq filter? I do not want to blow a tweeter!
Thanks.
1. No dithering
2. No Quantization
3. I'm not familiar with "Hearing curve", but try each to see which one is better for you.
4. I'd use 176.4
5. 24-bit
6. I know some SACD's are recorded pretty hot and any conversion to PCM will be clipped. I'd suggest keep it at 0 and if you run into any clipped files, reduce 3dB.
Don't worry about blowing out tweeters with UHF noise. Scarlett book specs limits the UHF noise of 20-50kHz and 50-100kHz when they're put out for production.
Similar threads
