Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?

[MylesBAstor]

Maybe there needs to be a point of comparison to facilitate better understanding.

I don't think anyone said there's NO DIFFERENCE between redbook and the higher resolution version from the same master. However, the differences between higher sample rates are minor compared to many of the other parts of music reproduction in my room. Things like the room itself, the speaker position, type of speaker, bass dynamics and linearity and seated position. If one's room has gone from mediocre to great in any or all of these factors, then higher sample rates from the same master really are trivial and mostly unimportant to music enjoyment.

It's in this context that I judge high resolution. High resolution and especially DSD can and is intimidating to many computer audio neophytes. DSD also greatly limits bass quality because DSD prohibits use of DSP, which is essential to excellent bass linearity in most rooms. I have personally gone down this high resolution road using some of the "best" DACs available in a very good room with great speakers and amplification. In the end, I've come to mostly the same conclusion as Tim.
Michael.

Sorry no again. Crap in, crap out. The best system is nothing without the best source material.

Listen it's pointless to argue because it's the chicken or the egg routine all over again. Reminds me of the Miller Lite less filling, no tastes great act. It's not one or the other, it's all things must come together.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Maybe there needs to be a point of comparison to facilitate better understanding.

I don't think anyone said there's NO DIFFERENCE between redbook and the higher resolution version from the same master. However, the differences between higher sample rates are minor compared to many of the other parts of music reproduction in my room. Things like the room itself, the speaker position, type of speaker, bass dynamics and linearity and seated position. If one's room has gone from mediocre to great in any or all of these factors, then higher sample rates from the same master really are trivial and mostly unimportant to music enjoyment.

It's in this context that I judge high resolution. High resolution and especially DSD can and is intimidating to many computer audio neophytes. DSD also greatly limits bass quality because DSD prohibits use of DSP, which is essential to excellent bass linearity in most rooms. I have personally gone down this high resolution road using some of the "best" DACs available in a very good room with great speakers and amplification. In the end, I've come to mostly the same conclusion as Tim.
Michael.

DSP essential......hardly.

your whole argument about redbook hangs on your obsession/love/commitment with DSP to 100% of your signal path. the vast majority of the most serious audiophiles that I know would not be within 10 miles of a system under the stranglehold of DSP. I'm not saying that DSP does not have a place in a high performance system. anyone who uses subwoofers likely has a DSP component to what they hear. just like a class d amp for deep bass, that is sensible and takes nothing away from the highest performing formats both digital and analog.

but for you to marginalize hirez or dsd due to your particular bias will never fly since it ignores what those of us who have done the most work to get our rooms right are doing. which is keeping our signal path analog where possible.....whether we have analog sources or not.

we are simply speaking different languages and in different universes with different truths. the DSP signal path world has a different viewpoint. and I respect that is the path you have chosen for yourself.

 

[dallasjustice]

Yes. I agree we are speaking different languages. I am fluent in both languages. What is your fluency with DSP? Ever used it? Which one?

DSP essential......hardly.

your whole argument about redbook hangs on your obsession/love/commitment with DSP to 100% of your signal path. the vast majority of the most serious audiophiles that I know would not be within 10 miles of a system under the stranglehold of DSP. I'm not saying that DSP does not have a place in a high performance system. anyone who uses subwoofers likely has a DSP component to what they hear. just like a class d amp for deep bass, that is sensible.

but for you to marginalize hirez or dsd due to your particular bias will never fly since it ignores what those of us who have done the most work to get our rooms right are doing. which is keeping our signal path analog where possible.....whether we have analog sources or not.

we are simply speaking different languages and in different universes with different truths. the DSP signal path world has a different viewpoint.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes. I agree we are speaking different languages. I am fluent in both languages. What is your fluency with DSP? Ever used it? Which one?

I have a separate home theatre in my house with 7.1 (Revel speakers-Velodyne subs-Lexicon amplifier) and some sort of DSP in my Cary 11a processor, and before that I had a Lexicon processor. i also have 2 subwoofers in that room. it's been quite awhile since i did the set-up and don't even recall which DSP it uses. it works but when i listen to music in that room it is not in the realm of my 2 channel room. there is an analog pass thru in that system which allows me to compare for music and i prefer that for music only listening.

and the overall bass performance is miles better in my 2-channel analog signal path room. it's not close.

i've not ever used DSP for the signal path in my 2-channel room, even back when i did multi-channel for a couple of years i used the EMM Labs Switchman II as a preamp and the signal stayed analog from my EMM Labs multi-channel SACD player.

i've listened to digitized analog sources enough to know i don't need to dumb down my signal path.

again; i respect that DSP does provide the right answer to the right question. I'm simply not asking that question.

 

[cpp]

 

[edorr]

DSP essential......hardly.

which is keeping our signal path analog where possible.....whether we have analog sources or not.
.

Not sure i am understanding this. When we have digital sources we do one d/a conversion. The only point of debate really is whether to do volume control in the analog or digital domain.

DSP essential......hardly.
we are simply speaking different languages and in different universes with different truths. the DSP signal path world has a different viewpoint.

While true in principle, Dallas' point that the sonic benefits of applying DRC far outweigh the benefits of playing at higher sample rates or DSD is true in 99% of systems (if we limit ourselves to digital sources). Case in point, I am not aware of a single example of someone applying Dirac or trinnov and saying "this gimmick just does not cut it for me, I'm taking it out".
May be the same or better could have been achieved by throwing a few hundred grand in room design and treatment and hardware at the problem, but for most this is not a realistic option. Thenagain, this is WBF after all, and there is room for both the 1%'ers and the 99%'ers point of view, which are really not contradictory.

 

[edorr]

i've not ever used DSP for the signal path in my 2-channel room, even back when i did multi-channel for a couple of years i used the EMM Labs Switchman II as a preamp and the signal stayed analog from my EMM Labs multi-channel SACD player.

That was then. Technology progresses. You mentioned yourself you never actually tried. how can you dismiss it? not talking about your analog sources, just the digital. Do yourself a favor and feed your playback design dac a good server signal over USB (simple caps 3 will do). The install Dirac live, do a calibration, and play with filter on and off, and tell us your preference. I'm honestly just interested in what the conclusion would be I the context of a very big end system.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not sure i am understanding this. When we have digital sources we do one d/a conversion. The only point of debate really is whether to do volume control in the analog or digital domain.

if you listen to dsd or 2xdsd then you have to hit it with the PCM stick thru your DSP processor. I have no idea what those processors do to a PCM high rez source.

While true in principle, Dallas' point that the sonic benefits of applying DRC far outweigh the benefits of playing at higher sample rates or DSD is true in 99% of systems (if we limit ourselves to digital sources). Case in point, I am not aware of a single example of someone applying Dirac or trinnov and saying "this gimmick just does not cut it for me, I'm taking it out".
May be the same or better could have been achieved by throwing a few hundred grand in room design and treatment and hardware at the problem, but for most this is not a realistic option. Thenagain, this is WBF after all, and there is room for both the 1%'ers and the 99%'ers point of view, which are really not contradictory.

and how exactly does Dallas know that 99% of systems benefit from DRC enough to outweigh the costs??????

the answer, or course, is that he does not know. he has an opinion. and we do know everyone has a right to those. which are different than facts.

it's for the specific listener to say subjectively whether the trade-offs and limitations of DRC/DSP are for them or not. throwing wild percentage claims is just wrong.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That was then. Technology progresses. You mentioned yourself you never actually tried. how can you dismiss it? not talking about your analog sources, just the digital. Do yourself a favor and feed your playback design dac a good server signal over USB (simple caps 3 will do). The install Dirac live, do a calibration, and play with filter on and off, and tell us your preference. I'm honestly just interested in what the conclusion would be I the context of a very big end system.

I'm not invalidating anyone's preference for DSP. enjoy it if you like it.

and yes, i've not tried it for my system.

OTOH i listen for hours a day to digitized analog recordings, and then listen to the real deal. and i listen to them with top level gear that optimizes the digitized versions. i know exactly what digitizing does to the signal.

and I'm not giving it any more exposure to my music than it already has.....based on my subjective opinions.

 

[garylkoh]

The advice sounds more like Snoopy's. Charlie Brown was the kid always going AAAAAAARGHHHHH!

Yes, I do believe that it would be Snoopy's advice to Charlie Brown.

 

[Steve Williams]

as I read through this thread the same strong personalities seem to be waging the same arguments. I have no problems with any of this except that the manner in which several of you are posting has IMO become personal and once again I caution those participants here. Challenge the post, not the poster

 

[Steve Williams]

DSP essential......hardly.

your whole argument about redbook hangs on your obsession/love/commitment with DSP to 100% of your signal path. the vast majority of the most serious audiophiles that I know would not be within 10 miles of a system under the stranglehold of DSP. I'm not saying that DSP does not have a place in a high performance system. anyone who uses subwoofers likely has a DSP component to what they hear. just like a class d amp for deep bass, that is sensible and takes nothing away from the highest performing formats both digital and analog.

but for you to marginalize hirez or dsd due to your particular bias will never fly since it ignores what those of us who have done the most work to get our rooms right are doing. which is keeping our signal path analog where possible.....whether we have analog sources or not.

we are simply speaking different languages and in different universes with different truths. the DSP signal path world has a different viewpoint. and I respect that is the path you have chosen for yourself.

Hi Mike

Not so certain that many or most people would agree agree with you here but certainly that's your opinion and I respect that (I bolded the part of your post)

FWIW I just returned from a 5 day trip to the East coast where I stayed with my good friend Marty who is IMO one of the most knowledgeable audiophiles I have ever known. Marty has changed from the VTL Siegfried to the new TOL Spectral 400 mono amps. Marty has top of the line gear in a dedicated room in which most people's homes are smaller. Marty has had a fully dedicated TacT system in his room and I have always maintained that it is one of the finest dedicated systems/room I have ever heard in my life. Having said that, Marty has relocated to a new home last year and has rebuilt a new dedicated room around his new Spectral amps. Having listened to his new system for the past 5 days I remain steadfast that IMO his system is probably in the top three systems in the galaxy. To dismiss DSP as not being serious audiophile might be your impression and those serious audiophiles you know however to dismiss it categorically IMO is somewhat shallow. You have always been on the cutting edge of technology but your vision of DSP IMO is incorrect.

Marty's DSP curve is completely flat from 100 Hz- 20 Khz.

Just my $0.02 and I don't have DSP in my system other than as you say via my Fathom subs.

 

[mep]

Top 3 systems in the galaxy??

 

[edorr]

OTOH i listen for hours a day to digitized analog recordings, and then listen to the real deal. and i listen to them with top level gear that optimizes the digitized versions. i know exactly what digitizing does to the signal.

and I'm not giving it any more exposure to my music than it already has.....based on my subjective opinions.

I'm talking about applying DRC on native digital sources, not digitized analog. Clearly native analog rules in your system. No one is suggesting applying A/D conversion to get access to DRC.

 

[dallasjustice]

Marty used to live near Dallas. I never heard his system when he lived here but my dealer did. He confirmed everything you say and then some.

Mike,
The ironic thing is that I partially credit Jonathan Tinn for getting me into DSP. Years ago he encouraged me to get a microphone and start measuring my room. From there, I started using very limited EQ generate from REW. Later on, I started experimenting with different convolution generation programs. Finally, I landed on DIRAC and use a DEQX for sub crossovers. It's been a long journey and it wasn't that long ago that I would have fully agreed with your point of view. I don't anymore.
Michael.

Hi Mike

Not so certain that many or most people would agree agree with you here but certainly that's your opinion and I respect that (I bolded the part of your post)

FWIW I just returned from a 5 day trip to the East coast where I stayed with my good friend Marty who is IMO one of the most knowledgeable audiophiles I have ever known. Marty has changed from the VTL Siegfried to the new TOL Spectral 400 mono amps. Marty has top of the line gear in a dedicated room in which most people's homes are smaller. Marty has had a fully dedicated TacT system in his room and I have always maintained that it is one of the finest dedicated systems/room I have ever heard in my life. Having said that, Marty has relocated to a new home last year and has rebuilt a new dedicated room around his new Spectral amps. Having listened to his new system for the past 5 days I remain steadfast that IMO his system is probably in the top three systems in the galaxy. To dismiss DSP as not being serious audiophile might be your impression and those serious audiophiles you know however to dismiss it categorically IMO is somewhat shallow. You have always been on the cutting edge of technology but your vision of DSP IMO is incorrect.

Marty's DSP curve is completely flat from 100 Hz- 20 Khz.

Just my $0.02 and I don't have DSP in my system other than as you say via my Fathom subs.

 

[edorr]

and how exactly does Dallas know that 99% of systems benefit from DRC enough to outweigh the costs??????

the answer, or course, is that he does not know. he has an opinion. and we do know everyone has a right to those. which are different than facts.

it's for the specific listener to say subjectively whether the trade-offs and limitations of DRC/DSP are for them or not. throwing wild percentage claims is just wrong.

Of course 99% is a random number. However, I know of not a single person that tried Dirac in a two channel system with native digital source that preferred the sound without Dirac (or Trinnov) engaged, so the percentage has to be pretty high.

 

[Steve Williams]

Marty used to live near Dallas. I never heard his system when he lived here but my dealer did. He confirmed everything you say and then some

If that is ScottW you are talking about I met him at Marty's home in Dallas several years ago.

I just feel to take a dismissive attitude towards DSP might vey well be robbing one of reaching that final frontier. Simply put, Marty's room remains in the top 3 systems I have ever heard in almost 50 years in this hobby

To state that Michael has bias in his opinion is IMO the same as Mike saying the opposite Keep an open ear guys. DSP is for real and most audiophiles believe in it

 

[c1ferrari]

DSD also greatly limits bass quality because DSD prohibits use of DSP, which is essential to excellent bass linearity in most rooms.
Michael.

DJ -- why wouldn't one implement DSP, if desired, after the D/A convertor

 

[edorr]

DJ -- why wouldn't one implement DSP, if desired, after the D/A convertor

Because DSP, by definition, works in the digital domain. One could of course convert dsd directly to analog, and then do A/D conversion, apply DSP, and convert back to analog. I did that, but converting DSD to PCM in digital domain and then run through DSP engine sounds better.

 

[c1ferrari]

Ah...elucidating explanation -- thank you, edorr