LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:22:22 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (235 lines)

I meant to say it's different to DAC a PCM stream from a CD than a DSD stream from an SACD. My point 
was, different parts of the DAC circuitry and/or different parameters in the circuit and/or firmware 
are used. So you could be hearing that plus or minus actual differences in the CD layer vs. SACD 
layer.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample


> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 

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

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