LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2015

ARSCLIST March 2015

Subject:

Re: Downsample

From:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:04:20 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

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
>>>
>
> 


  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager