Hi Dave:
What you are describing is my experience with well-made high-def versions vs. cd-resolution
versions, no matter if the HD format is PCM or DSD. What I was saying is, in my listening tests, HD
PCM seems more output=input than HD DSD because I hear a slight "gauze" on the top end with the DSD.
I think people who love a "warmer" sound prefer this, it's probably quite euphonic in some cases.
Because I work mostly in A-D transfers, my hearing is attuned to accurate reporduction and
transfer -- understanding the source's sound qualities, figuring out how best to playback the
source, and then counting on the digital transfer to be as close to output=input as the state of the
art allows.
There's one other thing to consider with your comparison of the layers on the RCA hybrid discs. It's
kind of apples and oranges because different circuitry and/or different circuit and firmware
parameters are used to DAC a CD vs a PCM stream from an SACD. So the player can behave like a
totally different animal with different formats. I remember back when the Mercury SACDs came out, we
listened to them, SACD and CD layers, plus the original CDs, on an early-era Sony SACD player (which
couldn't read the CD layer of the hybrid disc but could playback the original SACD), the Marantz
"universal disc player" that I still use today and a lower-cost but surprisingly good Toshiba
universal player. Every player sounded different in every situation. In the case of those discs, the
CD layer is sourced from a different transfer, so there was not an apples-apples comparison with the
SACD layers, in fact we were listening for the differences in the transfer chains and 3-2 mixing
decisions. But, my point is, the SACDs sounded different on every player and the CD layers sounded
different from the CDs on the two players that could play both. There are apparently, many variables
in the player hardware designs. For what it's worth, I've heard the same differences between the CD
layer on the hybrid discs and the original CDs on my more modern Oppo universal player.
Finally, let me say that these are subtle sonic differences I'm talking about, stuff one hears if
one is very familiar with the material and their listening system. It's not night and day, like the
difference between a dub tape and a master tape. With good digital equipment today, audible
variations tend to be small, but they are audible.
I wouldn't say this is a scientific test, but if you want some listening fun and like percussion
pieces, download Mike Fremer's ADC test examples here:
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/analog-digital-converter-shootout-which-sounds-best
Note that the channels are reversed in some of them, why??? Still, interesting. See how much
difference you hear between the various examples. I would suggest concentrating on the
high-frequency material and also on the spacial image, the reverb tails and stuff like variations in
level of the initial percussion hits, plus how audible is stuff like the triangle or bells moving or
being shaken (slight Doppler effect sounds). Also, how much do you hear the separation in both tone
and space of the instruments, where are they in the stereo image. Finally, how much punch do
low-frequency instruments have? Does it sound natural vs somewhat "canned"?
One man's opinion ... I think this kind of careful listening is important for front-line audio
professionals. It's healthy to be skeptical of all our gear all the time. I'm not at all convinced
that anyone has yet hit on "perfect reproduction" via a recording medium, but I will say that modern
HD digital is a lot closer than any of the antique formats I grew up with, and certainly capable of
output nearly equals input. I liken good modern equipment and techniques to being more surgical vs.
early digital being somewhat blunt tools.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
> Hi Tom
> I certainly haven't gone as far as you have in testing the different formats, and your hearing
> must be superior to mine; I certainly don't have any hearing in the upper ranges of DSD or even
> 44/16 PCM. When I first got an SACD player in 2004, and I played very familiar recordings, (like
> the Fiedler recording of "Gaite Parisienne"), I distinctly heard subtle instrumental details which
> I hadn't heard before. I switched to the CD layer on the same player with the same disc and
> listened to the same passages and I could pick out the same details, but they weren't near as well
> recorded and weren't as clear as they were on the SACD layer.
> db
>
>
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dave:
>
> Have you done controlled tests (ie same source, same playback chain, perhaps same ADC if it does
> both formats, perhaps same DAC if it does both formats) comparing 192/24 PCM and 1x or 2x DSD? I
> have heard such comparisons in a good mastering suite, using the newest Mytek DAC, although I'm
> not
> sure the ADC was the same exact unit (or even made by the same companies, since there are only a
> relative few ADCs that do both PCM and DSD, but the number is growing). I also did a controlled
> comparison with my Tascam DA-3000, which to my ears sounds quite good and sounds amazing for $800
> street. The DA-3000 is capable of 192/24 and 2x DSD. In both cases, my ears prefer PCM because I
> think DSD does something to "haze out" the top end a little bit. I think the LP crowd likes DSD
> because the top end definitely sounds un-bright and un-metallic, with normal-sounding source
> material. I found that if you feed DSD over-bright, harsh-sounding source material, it will
> faithfully reproduce the over-brightness and harshness. I do however think there is a subtle
> "shave
> off" going on at the very top with DSD digital and SACD sound. It's not always a bad thing, but I
> tend to prefer high-resolution PCM because to my ears it's more output=input (for better or
> worse).
> These differences I hear could well be related to ADC or DAC behavior, not format behavior. But I
> have been surprised that I tend to hear them almost universally when listening closely to familiar
> material.
>
> The general word I get in the world of commercial record companies and mastering engineers is that
> there's a niche market of audiophiles who vocally prefer DSD, but it's a niche market and the cost
> of dealing with trying to work in a pure DSD environment has to be justified by the potential
> sales
> of the end product. The Japanese market, for example, is still quite viable for certain titles in
> SACD physical media and pure DSD downloads. But, going forward, the number of titles where the
> extra workflow and expense can be justified is likely to be small. On the other hand, PCM workflow
> is pretty much PCM workflow, regardless of the resolution (although some mastering places really
> don't want to work at more than 96/24 because all of their tools are optimised for 96/24). So I'm
> a
> big advocate for moving forward and standardizing on 192/24 -- get updated tools and move forward.
> The reason I say this isn't because I hear differences on the same file between 192 and 96 -- I
> can't say I'd pass any blindfolded tests, even if I was working on the file. The reason I want the
> higher sample rate is because I want the transfer to capture things I can't hear that maybe
> someone
> like Jamie Howarth can use to fix problems that I can hear. For instance, some modern mag-film
> electronics will pass signal up to where the bias was on old recordings made on Westrex dubbers,
> for
> instance. If you transfer at 192/24 and send the file to Plangent, they can fix the wow and
> flutter
> caused by the sprocket transport. If you put a line in the sand and refused to transfer beyond
> 96/24, you wouldn't recover the bias and, if that piece of mag film rots from vinegar syndrome in
> the vault, what you did at 96/24 is all you've ever got. And by the way, this precludes DSD
> transfers for me because they noise-shape and roll off frequencies up where bias would be, at any
> DSD resolution.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Burnham" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
>
>
>> Well, Tom, you are absolutely correct and the differences you describe are exactly the
>> differences
>> between CD and SACD, I'd say for the same reasons, but I expect the contrast wouldn't be as
>> dramatic as between 96/24 and MP3.
>>
>> db
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> PS -- John Chester is right. If you take something from 96/24 to 44.1/16, there will be some
>>> level of audible difference, depending on the source material. I know there are plenty of
>>> quasi-religious arguments out in webland about "CD resolution is perfect" and there's a flawed
>>> "ABX" test reported in the AES Journal, but trained listeners who listen for their profession,
>>> such as members of ARSC, should hear differences. To take a crack at describing the differences
>>> I
>>> generally hear, you hear less of a fade out on a reverb tail, or less "air" around an instrument
>>> being played in a space. On the human voice, I hear a bit less of the low-level stuff that often
>>> happens in the throat and that sensitive mics can pick up, also less breath in a quiet vibrato.
>>> The net result, again to my ears, tends to be a flattening of the stereo image as heard through
>>> monitor speakers, it's more conforming to the dimensions and spread of the speakers rather than
>>> seeming deeper, wider and higher than the speakers. The audible differences shouldn't be
>>> drastic,
>>> but tend to be audible to a careful listener. Obviously I'm talking about differences in
>>> well-recorded content with subtle tonal and volume-level contrasts and changes. Something
>>> full-on
>>> slamming loud and harsh may sound equally good or bad at many resolution levels, including some
>>> lossy. But, it's worth noting that lossy CODECs use perceptual encoding and often change the
>>> frequency spectrum as heard over good speakers in a full-sized room at normal listening levels.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Steve:
>>>>
>>>> Since it's free to try, definitely try dBpoweramp:
>>>> https://www.dbpoweramp.com/
>>>>
>>>> The batch converter uses very good SRC and dither-down software, to my ears. By the way, I
>>>> don't
>>>> know why this is, but their batch converter, using the LAME engine, makes better-sounding MP3
>>>> at
>>>> the same bitrates than iTunes using licensed Frauhoffer (sp?) software. Other programs I've
>>>> tried that used the LAME engine sounded worse.
>>>>
>>>> You can get super-fancy in the area of "downsampling" as you call it. I don't hear any
>>>> difference that I can describe between software that uses similar SRC methods and similar
>>>> dither
>>>> profiles. I think the differences were more radical back in the day of hardware converters
>>>> built
>>>> into digital buss racks feeding Sony 1630 machines.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:09 PM
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is a reasonabley priced program that will downsample from 96/24 to
>>>>> 44.1/16 with no audible sonic alteration?
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|