|
|
Post by mshump on Oct 6, 2015 11:45:54 GMT -5
I just watched this a few minutes ago. Very interesting.
|
|
tknice
Sensei
Movies!
Posts: 358
|
Post by tknice on Oct 6, 2015 14:26:23 GMT -5
Agreed, I heard this podcast as well. Love it.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,092
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 6, 2015 16:37:17 GMT -5
Sad...
|
|
|
|
Post by djoel on Oct 6, 2015 19:18:19 GMT -5
Huge fan of Mark Walpred own some of his recording and they sound fantastic. I also own sacd decades before 1996 and i swear they sound amazing as well. The heart wants what it wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Oct 7, 2015 9:14:51 GMT -5
Here's an excerpt from Dr. Aix's (Mark Waldrep) e-mail newsletter yesterday that I found interesting:
Here's another scenario that speaks volumes about the state of affairs in high-end audio...and the whole question of integrity. I had a conversation at the RMAF about high-resolution DACs with a knowledgeable professional. He told me about a small company that makes very high-end DACs and the company's owner and designer. The company is well known for having pushed the envelop on the sampling rate and word length of PCM digital audio on their DACs (they also support multichannel and multiple versions of DSD). Their current model supports 384 kHz and 32-bit PCM. When I've asked about these extreme specs, he assured me that he "hears" a difference...an improvement...in the fidelity of 384 over 192 or 96 kHz. Ok fine.
The person that I spoke to told me that the owner of the company confided in him that he simply lies about the sonic improvements and his ability to hear the difference. Really? He was unabashed about the fact that in order to sell more of his high priced gear, he fabricates information about the performance of his units and what he hears. Am I surprised? I guess not...but I am very disappointed.
Something to think about...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 7, 2015 10:47:46 GMT -5
There's lies... and there's lies...
I have one or two problems with that story. While it may well in fact be true, he's also relating an anecdote that "he heard from a guy" who "heard it from another guy"... which I'm not sure rises quite to the level you'd need to repeat it on the witness stand in court. Also, to put it quite bluntly, I'd be a little surprised if a representative of a company selling a product would admit to someone that "he made stuff up about his products" - it just doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do. (I can understand if he made stuff up, and I don't doubt that it happens; but why, in the name of sanity, would someone be honest - or stupid - enough to admit publicly that they weren't honest?) Therefore, to me, that whole anecdote smacks of what they'd refer to on Law and Order as being "deliberately inflammatory". (In other words, he might as well have said, "not only do they lie - but they're laughing at you about it behind your back"; it's intended to offend you with just how dishonest those guys really are. Or, if I wanted to be really snarky, I'd say it's intended to hold them up as experts - and to suggest that you should NOT believe what the experts are saying because those same experts have admitted that they can't be trusted.)
The simple reality (whether the anecdote itself is true or not) is that of course someone selling a product is going to tell you that their product is better. Someone whose company sells high-res files, and DACs that can play them, is NOT going to say: "Well, of course, nobody, including me, can hear the difference... but do please give us your money anyway". (And the salesman at your favorite car dealership is quite unlikely to tell you: "Confidentially, our latest model sucks... " - unless he's trying to talk you into buying a closeout on a different model.)
My personal take on the subject is that I have absolutely positively heard high-res reissues and remasters that sound significantly better than the previous versions of the same album. That being the case, I consider at least some of them worth buying, and, since I want my equipment to be able to play whatever music I buy, that means that the DAC I choose must be able to play those formats. (The arguments may rage about whether "high-res formats really sound better", and whether "anyone can really hear the difference", and all of that may matter a lot to the recording industry. However, as a consumer, it doesn't matter to me whether the latest high-res remaster sounds better because it's high-res, or simply because they did a better job mixing it; I'm going to buy it because it sounds better, and my equipment needs to be able to play it. Trying to figure out with certainty where the difference lies is more complicated than you might think. It sounds easy to suggest that you could just buy a 24/192k file, convert it to 44k, and see for yourself if you hear a difference; but the reality is that any sample rate conversion will in fact introduce subtle but audible differences - so you can't even create "truly identical" files at different sample rates to compare. And, even if you could, many DACs use different filter settings for files at different sample rates, so your particular DAC might sound a tiny bit different as well.) However, to complete that first thought, I've also heard high-res remasters that DON'T sound better to me than the previous non-high-res version. (Which, I suppose, could be either because there really is no difference, or because the particular master tapes involved weren't of good enough quality that plain old 44k CDs had any difficult reproducing what was there perfectly.) Whichever way you look at it, this strongly suggests that only SOME high-res remasters are worth buying, so it's probably a good idea to read the reviews and such before buying any particular ones. (I'll also throw in the fact that, by my experience, some of those differences are only audible on certain speakers, or certain headphones, or on headphones and not speakers, or, just possibly, only on alternate sunny Tuesdays after I've had an extra coffee, which just may justify paying $5 more for the high-res version, if you've already decided that this year's remaster sounds better but don't hear any difference between the regular and high-res versions, just in case you might hear a difference on the equipment you own next year.)
The bottom line here is that, beyond a certain point, the technical realities don't matter.... At least some high-res files sound better than their standard-res counterparts - for whatever reason - and so they're worth buying; and, at least some of them don't sound better - for whatever reason - and so they're NOT worth buying. And, so, it would be foolish to never buy high-res files "because you're sure there is no audible difference", and it would be equally foolish to buy everything you own over again as a high-res file "because they sound better". What you should do is to treat each on its own merits.
And, just to make matters even worse, we humans are very subject to having what we experience modified by our expectations - which is a nice way of saying that we tend to see, hear, and taste what we EXPECT to. And, yes, all of the current hype surrounding high-res audio is in fact designed and intended to get you to expect them to sound better. Luckily, that only really causes problems when you have strong expectations... and the best defense against it is to maintain an open mind. (If you follow my advice, and don't particularly expect a given high-res release to sound better, or to NOT sound better, then you shouldn't have too many expectations that are likely to bias what you actually hear when you play it.... easier said than done.... but do try  .)
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 7, 2015 10:51:45 GMT -5
Well, my Eastern Electric DAC Supreme also supports up to 384 kHz PCM. It actually even uses *two* ESS SABRE³² Reference ES9018 chips (one for each channel), and dual toroidal power transformers. So, can I hear an improvement in 192 kHz PCM done right vs. 96 kHz done right? I would be a liar if I told you that I can't. Unfortunately however, there aren't too many ADC units out there that can PROPERLY record at 192 kHz. (Soz... caps). In fact, they are *very* hard to come by. (The Metric Halo ULN-8 is one example of an ADC that can do it properly).
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 7, 2015 11:14:14 GMT -5
There's also the issue that quite a few of these DAC units have a native processing rate. So to get to its native processing rate there is upsampling done. So, though not a given, it may be possible that anything that's not its native processing rate sounds not quite as good as the native rate. For instance if the native processing was optimized for a 192 khz file, the 96 khz or worse 88.2 Khz may be upsampled to it. This is conjecture, but something I've been wondering about. yves, schiit talked about doing an ADC unit similar to its yggdrasil dac. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Oct 7, 2015 12:02:42 GMT -5
I agree with Keith, it's highly unlikely that a senior exec would admit such a thing. I can't remember how many times I've had salesmen in stores tell me " That's a great model, I have one at home and I'm very happy with it". Sometimes they don't think it through because I've had them tell me " I've been using that for a couple of years and it's really great!" when the model in question wasn't even available back then!   |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 7, 2015 13:20:37 GMT -5
Actually, DAC technology has gotten a lot more complex than in the old days. Many DACs use an ASRC (asynchronous sample rate converter) to eliminate jitter - and most of those convert the incoming audio to a fixed sample rate (our XDA-2 does it that way; the DC-1 actually does it rather differently, and preserves the incoming sample rate at that stage). The DAC overall can then be optimized to work at the output sample rate of the ASRC. Beyond that (or separate from it); the DAC chip itself usually has a maximum sample rate it supports, so the internal oversampling filters are limited to that rate; this means that, in DACs where the incoming audio hasn't already been converted to a fixed rate by the ASRC, the oversampling applied to it will be determined by the sample rate (you generally pick the highest oversampling multiplier you can for that particular sample rate that doesn't exceed the maximum the DAC will accept). Sabre DACs use their own scheme, which sort of combines the function of the outboard ASRC and that of the oversampling filter into a single step - where the incoming audio is "variably oversampled" to the sample rate which is then sent to the DAC. There are actually several clocks involved, and different ways of optimizing them, which means that you can end up with slightly different sound. The Schiit Yggdrasil is actually rather unusual - because it uses an R2R DAC rather than a delta-sigma one, but it still uses oversampling (most "retro" R2R DACs are also non-oversampling). The upshot of all this, in the context of this discussion, is that it's very difficult to "compare the same content at different sample rates" and meet the requirement of "all else being equal". (One compromise is to use the same DAC, leave the files at different sample rates, and assume that the DAC isn't introducing much difference. Another is to take your "44k version", and upsample it to 192k, then compare it to the "real 192k version"; by allowing the DAC to play both at the same sample rate, you eliminate that variable, but introduce an additional variable of another conversion; if we assume that the main audible difference will be the limited frequency response of the 44k version, then this should be OK - but is that assumption 100% true?) There's also the issue that quite a few of these DAC units have a native processing rate. So to get to its native processing rate there is upsampling done. So, though not a given, it may be possible that anything that's not its native processing rate sounds not quite as good as the native rate. For instance if the native processing was optimized for a 192 khz file, the 96 khz or worse 88.2 Khz may be upsampled to it. This is conjecture, but something I've been wondering about. yves, schiit talked about doing an ADC unit similar to its yggdrasil dac. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 7, 2015 14:51:49 GMT -5
There's also the issue that quite a few of these DAC units have a native processing rate. So to get to its native processing rate there is upsampling done. So, though not a given, it may be possible that anything that's not its native processing rate sounds not quite as good as the native rate. For instance if the native processing was optimized for a 192 khz file, the 96 khz or worse 88.2 Khz may be upsampled to it. This is conjecture, but something I've been wondering about. yves, schiit talked about doing an ADC unit similar to its yggdrasil dac. Sorry, but I have been rather unimpressed with the audio performance of the Schiit Yggdrasil. The Eastern Electric DAC Supreme is a lot more affordable, and, despite that, IMNSHO performs better than Yggdrasil... YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 7, 2015 15:17:02 GMT -5
There's also the issue that quite a few of these DAC units have a native processing rate. So to get to its native processing rate there is upsampling done. So, though not a given, it may be possible that anything that's not its native processing rate sounds not quite as good as the native rate. For instance if the native processing was optimized for a 192 khz file, the 96 khz or worse 88.2 Khz may be upsampled to it. This is conjecture, but something I've been wondering about. yves, schiit talked about doing an ADC unit similar to its yggdrasil dac. Sorry, but I have been rather unimpressed with the audio performance of the Schiit Yggdrasil. The Eastern Electric DAC Supreme is a lot more affordable, and, despite that, IMNSHO performs better than Yggdrasil... YMMV Exciting! Have you heard it personally? What were your impressions good or bad? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 7, 2015 16:11:30 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have been rather unimpressed with the audio performance of the Schiit Yggdrasil. The Eastern Electric DAC Supreme is a lot more affordable, and, despite that, IMNSHO performs better than Yggdrasil... YMMV Exciting! Have you heard it personally? What were your impressions good or bad? While I can understand that, in theory, the use of a filter that adds more taps can provide higher accuracy, in practice the R2R DAC in Ygdrassil cannot match the 135 dB Dynamic Range that a well designed, ultra low electric noise implementation of *dual* ES9018 chips can deliver. Only downside... once you've grown accustomed to the sheer dynamics and detailed output of not just *any* SABRE DAC, but a SABRE DAC that manages to *carefully* express these main characteristics of the ES9018 sound signature (that is, if there exists such a thing...), and that manages this *without* adding much of any compromisations, you've become a person whose ears can be excruciatingly hard to please... so that's why I said "YMMV"... it's because, if I continue to talk about it further, you're probably going to hit me with a stick!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 7, 2015 17:02:44 GMT -5
(Note that I've listened pretty extensively to several DACs using Sabre chips, and own two or three at the moment, and I've heard Yggdrasil several times - but only for a few minutes each time, and I haven't heard the Eastern Electric DAC at all.) The Eastern Electric DAC uses a Sabre DAC chip, which do have a certain characteristic sound of their own. Even though this "sound characteristic" is relatively subtle, it is shared by all Sabre DACs, and not by other brands, so you really have to consider it to be a "house sound" common to all Sabre DACs. People who like Sabre DACs generally describe them as "revealing lots of detail"; people who don't like them tend to describe them as sounding "etched". Personally I find that Sabre DACs sound slightly bright - even though measurements indicate that their frequency response is quite flat. It's sort of like how looking at your carpet with a really bright light makes it easier to see all the individual fibers - and all the dust and dirt. I find this pleasant with some source material, but slightly annoying with others. In their early marketing literature, the folks who make the Sabre chip actually said that they selected their digital filter characteristics based on "focus group listening tests" rather than for the best accuracy according to measurements, which probably accounts for this. I find this difference - between Sabre DACs and others - to be more noticeable than, for example, most of the differences between a single DAC operating at different sample rates. My point here is that, if you do like the specific sound characteristics of Sabre DACs, then you're going to prefer devices that use them - and you're probably not going to like devices that use other - more neutral - DACs. (Note to people who haven't listened to either: The differences we're talking about here are in fact pretty subtle.) There's also the issue that quite a few of these DAC units have a native processing rate. So to get to its native processing rate there is upsampling done. So, though not a given, it may be possible that anything that's not its native processing rate sounds not quite as good as the native rate. For instance if the native processing was optimized for a 192 khz file, the 96 khz or worse 88.2 Khz may be upsampled to it. This is conjecture, but something I've been wondering about. yves, schiit talked about doing an ADC unit similar to its yggdrasil dac. Sorry, but I have been rather unimpressed with the audio performance of the Schiit Yggdrasil. The Eastern Electric DAC Supreme is a lot more affordable, and, despite that, IMNSHO performs better than Yggdrasil... YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 7, 2015 17:21:14 GMT -5
I'm glad Waldrep is exposing, on a small scale, how consumers are being persuaded to buy their favorite music yet another time when they are shelling out money solely for an upscaled 44/16 rip.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 7, 2015 18:35:05 GMT -5
(Note that I've listened pretty extensively to several DACs using Sabre chips, and own two or three at the moment, and I've heard Yggdrasil several times - but only for a few minutes each time, and I haven't heard the Eastern Electric DAC at all.) The Eastern Electric DAC uses a Sabre DAC chip, which do have a certain characteristic sound of their own. Even though this "sound characteristic" is relatively subtle, it is shared by all Sabre DACs, and not by other brands, so you really have to consider it to be a "house sound" common to all Sabre DACs. People who like Sabre DACs generally describe them as "revealing lots of detail"; people who don't like them tend to describe them as sounding "etched". Personally I find that Sabre DACs sound slightly bright - even though measurements indicate that their frequency response is quite flat. It's sort of like how looking at your carpet with a really bright light makes it easier to see all the individual fibers - and all the dust and dirt. I find this pleasant with some source material, but slightly annoying with others. In their early marketing literature, the folks who make the Sabre chip actually said that they selected their digital filter characteristics based on "focus group listening tests" rather than for the best accuracy according to measurements, which probably accounts for this. I find this difference - between Sabre DACs and others - to be more noticeable than, for example, most of the differences between a single DAC operating at different sample rates. My point here is that, if you do like the specific sound characteristics of Sabre DACs, then you're going to prefer devices that use them - and you're probably not going to like devices that use other - more neutral - DACs. (Note to people who haven't listened to either: The differences we're talking about here are in fact pretty subtle.) Sorry, but I have been rather unimpressed with the audio performance of the Schiit Yggdrasil. The Eastern Electric DAC Supreme is a lot more affordable, and, despite that, IMNSHO performs better than Yggdrasil... YMMV The Eastern Electric DAC that I am referring to doesn't use *a* SABRE DAC chip. It uses *two* of them, but anyway. Just because you think all SABRE DACs sound a little bright, doesn't necessarily mean that they all do. Personally, I, don't think the Eastern Electric DAC Supreme sounds anywhere *near* bright. In fact, I hate bright sound with a passion. Had I thought that what you said regarding SABRE DACs were true, I wouldn't even have considered *trying* a SABRE DAC, let alone *owning* one. (I own two, because I haven't sold my old Eastern Electric DAC Plus, which I have replaced with the DAC Supreme almost a year ago). Further, one of the things I happen to like about vinyl records is they very often tend to sound a little warmer than the (fairly typically, IMO anyway...) screechy CD version of the same album. That said, I think the audible difference between 24bit 96kHz and 24bit 192kHz is in the bass. Again, YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Oct 7, 2015 18:40:54 GMT -5
I listen to 50% Hi Res HD downloads. They absolutely sound better
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 7, 2015 19:59:04 GMT -5
Exciting! Have you heard it personally? What were your impressions good or bad? While I can understand that, in theory, the use of a filter that adds more taps can provide higher accuracy, in practice the R2R DAC in Ygdrassil cannot match the 135 dB Dynamic Range that a well designed, ultra low electric noise implementation of *dual* ES9018 chips can deliver. Only downside... once you've grown accustomed to the sheer dynamics and detailed output of not just *any* SABRE DAC, but a SABRE DAC that manages to *carefully* express these main characteristics of the ES9018 sound signature (that is, if there exists such a thing...), and that manages this *without* adding much of any compromisations, you've become a person whose ears can be excruciatingly hard to please... so that's why I said "YMMV"... it's because, if I continue to talk about it further, you're probably going to hit me with a stick! The oppo 105 (Plus XSP-1 - important!) was the finest DAC I've heard in real life. So I can completely understand your description of the fantastic saber dac. So have you heard the yggy in real life? If so, what did you think? Did you find it veiled or something? |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Oct 7, 2015 20:14:47 GMT -5
While I can understand that, in theory, the use of a filter that adds more taps can provide higher accuracy, in practice the R2R DAC in Ygdrassil cannot match the 135 dB Dynamic Range that a well designed, ultra low electric noise implementation of *dual* ES9018 chips can deliver. Only downside... once you've grown accustomed to the sheer dynamics and detailed output of not just *any* SABRE DAC, but a SABRE DAC that manages to *carefully* express these main characteristics of the ES9018 sound signature (that is, if there exists such a thing...), and that manages this *without* adding much of any compromisations, you've become a person whose ears can be excruciatingly hard to please... so that's why I said "YMMV"... it's because, if I continue to talk about it further, you're probably going to hit me with a stick! The oppo 105 (Plus XSP-1 - important!) was the finest DAC I've heard in real life. So I can completely understand your description of the fantastic saber dac. So have you heard the yggy in real life? If so, what did you think? Did you find it veiled or something? I'm curios too, please share your views on the yggy |
|
|
|
Post by sidvicious on Oct 8, 2015 5:28:32 GMT -5
Wow, what an eye opener, no wonder some of the HD Tracks stuff sounds no better than high quality CD Rips, I use EAC, very informative, I went to his site and signed up!!!
|
|
.)
