CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
Your argument Tim-not mine. Your thoughts regarding high-end gear and the buyers of same are well-documented on this forum.
You don't? Thank you for the clarification.
Yes it does. Both displaying both pre AND post purchase biases and rationalizations. I am pointing out however that there are a helluva lot of biases on the other end as well. Since Audiophile bashing is in vogue, stereotyping is just the most common. Quite a few logical fallacies as well. A lot of pots calling kettles black. In this particular thread topic what I see is anchoring bias by both sides.
What we gonna do? People are people and we ALL have biases despite what some might project or claim (not you).
What do my leanings have to do with a rational discussion about the content of the Mark Waldrep blog piece?
He makes the point that it might be somewhat misleading to call a digital transfer (whatever the resolution) from analog tape "high-res", as tape is no better than red book if measured by traditional measures such as bandwidth, distortion and dynamic range. I guess your point of view depends on how you view digital hi-res - some people feel you really need the added resolution from the increased word length and sample rate, while others feel the main benefit of "hi-res" is the higher sample rate allowing less aggressive filtering in the analog-to-digital conversion process. If you are in the latter camp, the fact that the source is limited by the resolution of tape is less of a concern.
Personally I feel the main benefit of hi-res is the (hopefully) increased attention to the quality of the mastering, while I feel the media and format are less important.
As you specifically ask about my opinion on PCM over DSD, I have to say that as a purely personal opinion, I favour PCM due to the fact that most music does need processing at some point in the production chain, and keeping everything in the PCM domain avoids the conversions from DSD to "processable" formats such as DSD-wide and DXD and back. I also think DSD has a high-frequency noise signature that, while sounding pleasant and "analog" to a lot of people, is ultimately artificial and not faithful to the original sound.
I know, I will probably now be once again told that my ears are full of wax, my audio system is the worst one you have ever heard about, and my swimming pool is smaller than yours.
One of the objectives of the thread should be just separating the media and format from the mastering. Feeling the media and format is "less important" still acknowledges some importance to it. We are mainly interested in debating this "small" difference that others rank differently.
Can you explain why the high-frequency noise signature of DSD sounds pleasant and "analog"?
As wrote in my response to mep specifically asking which one I "favor", a term implying subjective preference:
So it is purely my own, personal view, based on my own experience, that the high-frequency noise signature of DSD might be perceived as pleasant in the same way as the benign harmonic distortion pattern of some tube amplifiers and vinyl pickups, and thus be associated with an "analog" sound.
It would be great - we would just to have to re-record PCM high resolution files using DSD recorders to get high quality sound! I have tried recording CDs played in an excellent CD player using my Korg MR2000s in DSD mode in the past and they did not sound analog on playback.
Anyway, I am not an expert, but I think that "analog" distortions are mainly harmonic or inter-modulation and, in the case of LP, mechanical. I can not see how the high-frequency noise signature of DSD can sound like analog.
May be I am tone deaf but the more time I spend actually listening to music in whatever format it is available, the more I realize this whole debate about high-rez / low-rez / DSD / PCM is just aspect of the hobby of interest strictly to obsessive compulsive audiophiles. I cannot comment on the analog / digital debate, because I have never been exposed to sota analog.
In my estimation difference between format/resolution are +/- 5%, differences in recording quality are +/- 50%, difference in system are +/- 50%. I was listening to a channel classic SACD yesterday and switched to a 44/16 CD rip (ECM) on my server, and felt I lost nothing in terms of sound quality. Availability of content (in whatever format) should be the overriding concern of anyone interested in music, and the whole debate over format / resolution is just a sideshow. Just my opinion of course.....
In my estimation difference between format/resolution are +/- 5%, differences in recording quality are +/- 50%, difference in system are +/- 50%. I was listening to a channel classic SACD yesterday and switched to a 44/16 CD rip (ECM) on my server, and felt I lost nothing in terms of sound quality. Availability of content (in whatever format) should be the overriding concern of anyone interested in music, and the whole debate over format / resolution is just a sideshow. Just my opinion of course.....
But did "pure" DSD files sound analog to you?
The high-frequency noise could cause intermodulation, and emphasize transients and high frequencies, making the sound "bright" and "musical". But this is purely speculation on my part, and I am not a big fan of idle speculation - I am purely responding to your "I can not see how..."
I pretty sure I agree with you here!
And I expressed somewhat similar sentiments over at another forum. To me the debate is getting tiresome. I understand however that for some its a bigger deal, and that's perfectly fine with me as well. I enjoy reading about it and learning something from some very well thought out posts, but I'm in it for the music primarily. I may also be somewhat tone deaf as many times I can't tell the difference either between the various digital formats. Standard Redbook CD and SACD works for me, and I won't be investing in hi-rez digital files any time soon.
In that case I can understand why you find a thread about hi-res tiresome...
Just to clarify....NOT the thread, as I find it very interesting.
I have no experience with DSD masters. But IMHO a few DSD needle drops could preserve better the resolution and ambiance of a direct cut LP than the equivalent PCMs. But surely the effect can due to the implementation of DSD and PCM in the used equipment - a Korg MR2000s. Using isolated cases it is very difficult to separate differences due to implementation and intrinsic characteristics of the format. But until I get a DCS Vivaldi
(said to be one of the best in both formats) I will have to rely on the Korg and others opinions. I can see that even in such a basic subject, fundamental to debate the thread, we are both just speculating. IMHO when we try to correlate technical and listening preferences we go in trouble. Anyway, in my limited experiences DSD was not "bright".
Well, only reason I am speculating is because I was asked specific questions asking for subjective preferences. And that is why I very clearly flagged them as speculation.
I think the real trouble begins when people try to justify their subjective preferences by resorting to technical speculation that ignores or goes across established knowledge. We all have listening preferences. Not all of us try to convince the world that our preferences are the "right" ones.
If the maths and science regarding acoustics, the physiology of the ear etc. all say that RBCD derived from a hi res master should sound identical but you find that there's a large audible difference, you could have a few options:
1. There's something wrong with the maths and the science. Could be interesting to narrow it down and find out why. Get a PhD out of it.
2. There's something wrong universally with the RBCD implementation, that they managed to avoid with high res. Seeing as the same DACs are used to reproduce both CD and high res you'd think it was unlikely
3. There's something wrong with 'the experiment'. Maybe you imagined the difference as the science shows happens all the time without a DBT, even amongst proper scientists . Embarrassing, but not the end of the world.
Few here actually seem to address any of these possibilities. The available options are:
1. You don't hear any difference, which means you have Tin Ears, or your equipment is not 'High End'. You must buck up your ideas or there is no place for you in WBF.
2. You say you hear a big difference, which means you're probably one of us, but there's work yet to do.
3. You say you hear a big difference, but prefer analogue. Your turntable platter is 6" thick and made of gold, driven by a belt the thickness of a human hair. You are a discerning person with Golden Ears and welcome around here any time!
1. There's something wrong with the maths and the science. Could be interesting to narrow it down and find out why. Get a PhD out of it.
2. There's something wrong universally with the RBCD implementation, that they managed to avoid with high res. Seeing as the same DACs are used to reproduce both CD and high res you'd think it was unlikely
3. There's something wrong with 'the experiment'. Maybe you imagined the difference as the science shows happens all the time without a DBT, even amongst proper scientists . Embarrassing, but not the end of the world.
Few here actually seem to address any of these possibilities. The available options are:
1. You don't hear any difference, which means you have Tin Ears, or your equipment is not 'High End'. You must buck up your ideas or there is no place for you in WBF.
2. You say you hear a big difference, which means you're probably one of us, but there's work yet to do.
3. You say you hear a big difference, but prefer analogue. Your turntable platter is 6" thick and made of gold, driven by a belt the thickness of a human hair. You are a discerning person with Golden Ears and welcome around here any time!
Details matter, mep. So does honesty. Here's your straw man:
straw man...actually that's a pretty polite term for it. What's well-documented here is that I am very skeptical of high-end/audiophile claims and conventional wisdoms, and that I believe the science of audio, including measurements, the Nyquist theory and the results of the rare DBX, are probably significantly more credible than what many people think they hear with their eyes wide open and their biases fully engaged. Your characterization of that is, as always, duplicitous.
Tim
The main problem should be now determining how far goes the "established knowledge".
Can I conclude that you have some trouble reading TheAbsoluteSound but feel disturbed reading Stereophile?
Can I conclude that you have some trouble reading TheAbsoluteSound but feel disturbed reading Stereophile?
I think that is a pretty good assessment
Hey PPonk - the first Japanese Remaster of Bruce Springsteen Tunnel of Love arrived...into the 3rd track and stunning is all I can say. AFter (at best) a 3 out of 10 for earlier original cDs...these guys are 7.5, possibly 8...or it certainly seems like an 8 after years of crap tinny cds. Enjoy...2nd hand on Amazon.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |