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

[edorr]

if preferring 192/24 or 176/24 to 96/24 or even 16/44 "disqualifies your entire approach" then why go from MP3 to 16/44?

is it ever ok to prefer better sound? or is it somehow an arbitrary level decided by whom exactly?

or maybe we all should simply pursue the level of sound quality we might desire? isn't that what this hobby is all about, the pursuit of fine audio and higher enjoyment of the music we love?



maybe as your system is currently constituted that could be correct. but how exactly do you know that? have you tried higher levels of resolution, dsd, 2xdsd, vinyl and determined that the DSP brings you more net gain? or are you assuming that end result?

Mike my point is that if you sell your system that sounds best for anything up to 96/24 (which is where all all the content is), because you found something better sounding on higher resolution only, you are obviously in it for sound quality, not content. Your "net gain" is better sound quality, but your "net loss" is taking a hit on sound quality of abbey road on 44/16. Nothing wrong with that but not my approach to sound reproduction.

Your approach would be to keep both sources. One optimized for 44/16, the other for high Rez. This makes a lot more sense.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike my point is that if you sell your system that sounds best for anything up to 96/24 (which is where all all the content is), because you found something better sounding on higher resolution only, you are obviously in it for sound quality, not content. Your "net gain" is better sound quality, but your "net loss" is taking a hit on sound quality of abbey road on 44/16. Nothing wrong with that but not my approach to sound reproduction.

Your approach would be to keep both sources. One optimized for 44/16, the other for high Rez. This makes a lot more sense.

Eric, you live in your 16/44 world, and apply your 16/44 centric logic to it. however there is more out there than that to seriously consider.

and 90% of who's content exists in 16/44? maybe yours, but not mine, not even if I only stay to PCM. and if I include dsd, 2xdsd and SACD, then 16/44 even including my non-server based 4000 CD collection it's not even half. and if I add my vinyl then 16/44 is only about 20%, and maybe 5% of my listening time.

so using a product to 'fix' a system which dumbs down the majority of my software is simply not gonna fly.

and we come back to my initial comment to Michael (Dallas) about his DSP centric bias being the problem when considering hirez.....which launched this back and forth about DSP.

it's about allllll the music, not just 16/44!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[edorr]

Eric, you live in your 16/44 world, and apply your 16/44 centric logic to it. however there is more out there than that to seriously consider.

and 90% of who's content exists in 16/44? maybe yours, but not mine, not even if I only stay to PCM. and if I include dsd, 2xdsd and SACD, then 16/44 even including my non-server based 4000 CD collection it's not even half. and if I add my vinyl then 16/44 is only about 20%, and maybe 5% of my listening time.

I have plenty high Rez stuff. I only listen to classical in MCH high Rez. I don't live in 44/16 world. I live in an ECM, Led Zeppelin, Charles Lloyd world. It so happens they release their stuff on 44/16. So even if Charles releases an album on 96/24 (which he did), I still find myself listening to his 44/16 album Sangam more, because I prefer it musically. I'll grab all the high Rez content I can get that interest me musically. With the exception of classical there is almost none.

 

[mep]

Mike-We have more than a few people on this forum who claim there is either no difference or very little difference in sound between RBCD all the way up to 24/192. We even have a few that claim we may not be able to tell the difference between MP3 and RBCD. For those believers, DSP is their holy grail. All digital sounds the same to them anyway so the homogenizing effects of down-sampling hi-rez simply don't matter to them assuming they even have any hi-rez files to begin with. I get that and I'm happy for them that they are happy. What I don't get is the lashing out I'm seeing against those who choose not to reduce their resolution.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have plenty high Rez stuff. I only listen to classical in MCH high Rez. I don't live in 44/16 world. I live in an ECM, Led Zeppelin, Charles Lloyd world. It so happens they release their stuff on 44/16. So even if Charles releases an album on 96/24 (which he did), I still find myself listening to his 44/16 album Sangam more, because I prefer it musically. I'll grab all the high Rez content I can get that interest me musically. With the exception of classical there is almost none.

please don't misunderstand my meaning. I am not dissing redbook/16/44. it can sound fantastic, and it's 'good enough' that the musical content comes thru loud and clear. there are many very high level systems which are 16/44 exclusively. I love my 16/44 music. I just love other software I have more.

that being said; when DSP loving 16/44 'world view' posters apply that viewpoint to system and source optimization building logic there is a disconnect due to the format viewpoint conflict.

this conflict is not going away anytime soon.

 

[microstrip]

There are a lot of comments here and elsewhere in this forum telling us what we should like and how we should like it. I think the vast majority of posters (and readers) here really like music and strive to have it sound as good as they can in their systems, as with the title of that long running thread (which of course got far off-topic) "It's all a preference..". For some (many?) to insist that their way of getting there (analog, digital, PCM, DSD, tape, LP, DSP or never DSP, etc) is the best way for others is comical, or would be except for the animosity inevitably expressed.

Rob,

Although I agree with your pacification intentions and good will, I disagree with the "its all a preference, let us be friends". I read posts stating what others should like as a too enthusiast endorsement of the poster preference, and if the poster has justified and documented his advice I usually find it interesting and valuable, not comical.

Steve comments are really interesting and have several subjects that deserve further thoughts. Is our preference of format dictated by the reproduction system that we have assembled and its intrinsic qualities and defects? Does the possibility of micro tweaking frequency response overcome the losses due to the extra processing due to DSP? Assuming you do not have different settings for each recording how far does micro tweaking FR benefit some recordings at the expense of others?

Forums are enjoyable if we have debates on the different opinions. We all know it is all IMHO and we can rely on our moderators to control animosity if it shows excessive anytime. IMHO this is WBF, not audio children-garden.

 

[rhbblb1]

I would like to say what has been said before, but with different words. Most of us believe that there are many factors which effect sound quality. Many of us also believe that the speaker room interaction far outweighs many of the other factors that effect the quality of the sound. I prefer an "average" system in an excellent room to a "superb system" in an average room. DRC can enhance the speaker room interaction in most environments. That enhancement to many of us again outweighs most other tweaks and usually outweighs the differences between between components. Yes, DSD is superior to 16/44, but it is not the difference between reproduced and live music. It is enhanced reproduced music. To me and many others, DRC'd PCM at 24/96 (now the current limit of Dirac) is superior to DSD without DRC.
BTW, I have a professionally designed room by Chris Huston which was subsequently modified by Art Noxin and listen to DSD with a dCS Scarlatti stack.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Rob,

Although I agree with your pacification intentions and good will, I disagree with the "its all a preference, let us be friends". I read posts stating what others should like as a too enthusiast endorsement of the poster preference, and if the poster has justified and documented his advice I usually find it interesting and valuable, not comical.

Steve comments are really interesting and have several subjects that deserve further thoughts. Is our preference of format dictated by the reproduction system that we have assembled and its intrinsic qualities and defects? Does the possibility of micro tweaking frequency response overcome the losses due to the extra processing due to DSP? Assuming you do not have different settings for each recording how far does micro tweaking FR benefit some recordings at the expense of others?

Forums are enjoyable if we have debates on the different opinions. We all know it is all IMHO and we can rely on our moderators to control animosity if it shows excessive anytime. IMHO this is WBF, not audio children-garden.

With much respect micro...why does everything have to be justified and documented with you? The more I read your posts, the more I'm starting to believe that #'s on a piece of paper have more value than a user's listening experience, preference or result.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

... I have used both trinnov and Dirac at 96/24 with very high grade (MSB) dac, and there is not a chance in hell that the marginal benefits of playing at higher resolution more than offset the benefits of applying DRC. At least in my system.

To me and many others, DRC'd PCM at 24/96 (now the current limit of Dirac) is superior to DSD without DRC.

Just to pile on: I concur. There are improvements in sound as one increases the resolution of the playback of genuine high resolution files but the improvements become increasingly small while the effect of of DRC remains significant. I will not defend my room but due acknowledge that it is not perfect. Net, net, as they say.

 

[Steve Williams]

Mike-We have more than a few people on this forum who claim there is either no difference or very little difference in sound between RBCD all the way up to 24/192. We even have a few that claim we may not be able to tell the difference between MP3 and RBCD. For those believers, DSP is their holy grail. All digital sounds the same to them anyway so the homogenizing effects of down-sampling hi-rez simply don't matter to them assuming they even have any hi-rez files to begin with. I get that and I'm happy for them that they are happy. What I don't get is the lashing out I'm seeing against those who choose not to reduce their resolution.

Mark

you continue to like that word 'homogenized'.

You commented yesterday about it as well and I asked you how you are so certain what a system sounds like without even hearing it. IMO it would be a revelation hearing at the very least the syatem I heard over this past week. I was played every genre of music and the music was so engaging that it was anything but. I must admit Mark several years ago I felt exactly as you did. I wondered why my friend who has been in this hobby for over 40 years was suddenly going to a TacT based system.I thought all the thoughts that you did and had all the expectation bias that you did. Only difference is that I heard the system and frankly I couldn't believe my ears. If this is what you call homogenized I say you need to listen again because I would offer up the likelihood that you haven't heard a well tuned DSP system.

 

[dallasjustice]

Put up or . . .

DSP is software and it's free to tryout. Of the top 3 modern approaches to DSP, 2 handle bits natively to 24/192 and the third will shortly make that available as it's currently limited to 24/96. Everyone has an opinion. But some opinions count more than others. My challenge to anyone with a strong belief: make it count.
Michael.

 

[MylesBAstor]

True, but the artist will create a better picture if the palette is capable of showing more detail. Assuming we aren't talking about obscured, muddy art. Then the cassette palette will be better.

+1

The key phrase is all things being equal. That's instead of looking at the LCD.

Keith better have a good mike with his cassette deck though.

 

[MylesBAstor]

if preferring 192/24 or 176/24 to 96/24 or even 16/44 "disqualifies your entire approach" then why go from MP3 to 16/44?

is it ever ok to prefer better sound? or is it somehow an arbitrary level decided by whom exactly?

or maybe we all should simply pursue the level of sound quality we might desire? isn't that what this hobby is all about, the pursuit of fine audio and higher enjoyment of the music we love?



maybe as your system is currently constituted that could be correct. but how exactly do you know that? have you tried higher levels of resolution, dsd, 2xdsd, vinyl and determined that the DSP brings you more net gain? or are you assuming that end result?

and 90% of who's content exists in 16/44? maybe yours, but not mine, not even if I only stay to PCM. and if I include dsd, 2xdsd and SACD, then 16/44 even including my non-server based 4000 CD collection it's not even half. and if I add my vinyl then 16/44 is only about 20%, and maybe 5% of my listening time.

+1

 

[mep]

This sounds like a real hoot to me:

I have watched Marty tweak his response literally on a daily basis often hours at a time. He started with a recommended Tact curve and then modifies that on an almost daily basis. He is a master at this piece of software. I have watched corrections by as little as 1/4-1/3 Db change in a specified part of the curve with audible changes in the room.

I would rather listen to music than spend hours tweaking software every damn day. I mean really...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I would like to say what has been said before, but with different words. Most of us believe that there are many factors which effect sound quality. Many of us also believe that the speaker room interaction far outweighs many of the other factors that effect the quality of the sound. I prefer an "average" system in an excellent room to a "superb system" in an average room. DRC can enhance the speaker room interaction in most environments. That enhancement to many of us again outweighs most other tweaks and usually outweighs the differences between between components. Yes, DSD is superior to 16/44, but it is not the difference between reproduced and live music. It is enhanced reproduced music. To me and many others, DRC'd PCM at 24/96 (now the current limit of Dirac) is superior to DSD without DRC.
BTW, I have a professionally designed room by Chris Huston which was subsequently modified by Art Noxin and listen to DSD with a dCS Scarlatti stack.

interesting.

I notice that you have your DSD thru the Scarlatti, as well as your vinyl, as sources. so how do you prefer to listen to those sources? thru the Dirac?

and you have Q5's with REL subs. does the Dirac help to integrate those?

is integration 'less ideal' when not using the Dirac? are there trade-offs?

I'm simply trying to understand how the Dirac integrates with your speaker set-up and different sources?

 

[microstrip]

With much respect micro...why does everything have to be justified and documented with you? The more I read your posts, the more I'm starting to believe that #'s on a piece of paper have more value than a user's listening experience, preference or result.

Because stereo is such a non predicable and variable system that if you do not have the details you will learn very little from the posts, and most probably we can not properly go on talking about the subject properly. Fortunately, as most of us have posted enough and described their experiences and systems in the past I know enough about many of members systems and preferences. However, a few never want to answer questions or share details - fortunately you are not of those, I can appreciate your posts.

BTW, IMHO the justification and documentation is given by details and preferences, not numbers, unless the information needs statistics!

 

[microstrip]

True, but the artist will create a better picture if the palette is capable of showing more detail. Assuming we aren't talking about obscured, muddy art. Then the cassette palette will be better.

IMHO this is the essence of WBF. Giving people the best palette.

 

[dallasjustice]

DIRAC isn't a crossover. However, it does auto compensate up to 10ms to better integrate bass. I prefer to manually dial subs in using REW and crossover in DEQX and then use DIRAC after that's done. DIRAC is flexible. You could use it to only correct a narrow band and not touch the rest if you wish.

interesting.

I notice that you have your DSD thru the Scarlatti, as well as your vinyl, as sources. so how do you prefer to listen to those sources? thru the Dirac?

and you have Q5's with REL subs. does the Dirac help to integrate those?

is integration 'less ideal' when not using the Dirac? are there trade-offs?

I'm simply trying to understand how the Dirac integrates with your speaker set-up and different sources?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Because stereo is such a non predicable and variable system that if you do not have the details you will learn very little from the posts, and most probably we can not properly go on talking about the subject properly. Fortunately, as most of us have posted enough and described their experiences and systems in the past I know enough about many of members systems and preferences. However, a few never want to answer questions or share details - fortunately you are not of those, I can appreciate your posts.

BTW, IMHO the justification and documentation is given by details and preferences, not numbers, unless the information needs statistics!

Thanks micro! I'm here only to get insights about some of these things, and you have provided much of that. Good luck tomorrow!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

DIRAC isn't a crossover. However, it does auto compensate up to 10ms to better integrate bass. I prefer to manually dial subs in using REW and crossover in DEQX and then use DIRAC after that's done. DIRAC is flexible. You could use it to only correct a narrow band and not touch the rest if you wish.

I'm specifically interested in how rhbblb1 actually integrates sources (analog and dsd) that must be decimated (converted to PCM) to use his Dirac; he says that he prefers 24/96 thru the Dirac to dsd. but what does he actually do about that in his listening?

and he has Q5's and needs to integrate the REL subs; I understand that the Q series presents challenges for most subs to integrate properly (I'm not saying that the REL's are not perfect already, just curious), does the Dirac help with that? and if so, what does that do about those other sources?

I'm curious about the whole system implications of this Dirac product as it pertains to these real world system issues. is the Dirac simply a nice enhancement to his server or a whole system effecting product?

his post infers things but is vague as to how the Dirac works for him.