[theveterans]

Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.

I don't think it's AKM. It's more like the Ti PCM1704 or TDA1541 or AD1865N-K chips

 

[sunjam]

I don't think it's AKM. It's more like the Ti PCM1704 or TDA1541 or AD1865N-K chips

Cool, thanks for your reply. I was doing some research on vintage DAC chips too. That's what I found out too. I was wondering if I miss any one from AKM.

 

[BS5711]

"Your argument seems to be centred around the premise that you hear something different with hi res audio so you are digging deeper to understand why." <=== Yes and no.
Yes: I hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD <== not an argument for our discussion.
No: I was not asking why

"My question was how old are you ?" <=== I bought and listened to cassette and LP in the past

"Additionally, do you have any other day to day examples of your hearing ability outside of audio that might help demonstrate that your hearing extends beyond scientific knowledge ?" <=== No, I believe that I am just a regular guy. I don't think I can hear 20kHz or higher.

'I know you prefer the technical stuff but there are two parts involved in audio, what makes sound via a moving diaphragm and what happens when the sound waves hit our ears. Both sides are equally important" <=== Yes, I agree.

'but you don’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in explaining the second part and how your specific auditory experience forms the foundation of your interest and ultimately for your argument.' <=== Sorry for my ignorance, I don't really get what you want to say. Do you mean I need to explain how/why people hear the difference? Sorry, I really don't get it. I didn't use any of my hearing as my argument for the discussion? I don't think I use "I can hear the difference" as the argument for our discussion as it is my own personal experience. Correct?

You say you hearing differences between CD snd Hi Res isn’t an argument for this discussion but isn’t the entire premise of your argument that you believe there are audible benefits. That is you have personally experienced differences but science indicates the technical differences should not be audible.

I am asking how you hear those benefits when current science indicates the differences are outside human auditory limits.

Not technically “how” because you probably wouldn’t know that but I am trying to establish if in essence you believe that science doesn’t understand human hearing. That seems to be a necessary assertion if the rest of your argument has any merit.

You are old enough that your hearing probably tops out at maybe 15khz maximum yet it seems like you are saying you still hear improvement with high res that science says doesn’t exist.

Either I have missed something in the premise of the discussion or I am not getting my question across so you understand me.

I know you want to talk about the technical stuff but the technical stuff and you or anyone else hearing differences due to the technical stuff are intrinsically linked.

 

[493756]

OK, I’ll assume it was just a genuine misunderstanding due to the article itself being misleading:

A basic tenet of digital audio (as set out in the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem) is that the conversion from analogue to digital and from digital to analogue is band limited, IE. There are two filters, an anti-alias filter when converting to digital and an anti-image (or reconstruction) filter when converting from digital back to analogue. Uniquely, NOS DACs typically do not have a reconstruction filter and are therefore effectively broken! For this reason they are not used for professional or commercial audio applications, they are purely an audiophile marketing gimmick. Fortunately, NOS DACs are extremely rare, although in recent years the trend in the audiophile DAC market has been to provide switchable filter options and a few of them provide an option that emulates a NOS DAC. Though why anyone would want to emulate a broken DAC design in a DAC that isn’t broken is a mystery only an audiophile marketer (or someone suckered by it) could appreciate.

The article to which you linked does not demonstrate “critical thinking or good learning” because it doesn’t consider how DACs actually work, it only considers this rare, effectively broken design and therefore promotes the false marketing (pseudo science) which it falsely claims it’s trying to help others to avoid! By the author’s own words: “My critical thinking does not allow me to accept any claim without …further analysis.” - How is it possible that his “further analysis” only revealed a very rare, broken design but not how DACs are supposed to work or indeed how nearly all DACs do work? That is NOT critical thinking and it is DEFINITELY NOT a “good learning technique” if he hasn’t even learned the fundamental basics of how digital audio works! However as mentioned previously, he might actually have learned the basics and have applied critical thinking but is simply lying, in order to deliberately mislead others.

G

Nice. Some like me will use critical thinking and analyze what people say as information we will chew on for a time but when we start seeing the information is essentially half truths we might not be a welcoming as you and call it a misunderstanding.

The half truth tactic is being bombarded on people on many fronts these days. Snake oil is snake oil.

Examples include the recent history of our culture using this tactic. The reason I am in this hobby is get a break from that nonsense and yet the snake oil is in everything. to have snake oil there must be snakes and snakes will do what snakes do

 

[sunjam]

You say you hearing differences between CD snd Hi Res isn’t an argument for this discussion but isn’t the entire premise of your argument that you believe there are audible benefits. That is you have personally experienced differences but science indicates the technical differences should not be audible.

I am asking how you hear those benefits when current science indicates the differences are outside human auditory limits.

Not technically “how” because you probably wouldn’t know that but I am trying to establish if in essence you believe that science doesn’t understand human hearing. That seems to be a necessary assertion if the rest of your argument has any merit.

You are old enough that your hearing probably tops out at maybe 15khz maximum yet it seems like you are saying you still hear improvement with high res that science says doesn’t exist.

Either I have missed something in the premise of the discussion or I am not getting my question across so you understand me.

I know you want to talk about the technical stuff but the technical stuff and you or anyone else hearing differences due to the technical stuff are intrinsically linked.

It seems that you have a lot of assumptions.

Let me make it clear:

1. Quite a lot of people claim that "Hi-Res is useless" (statement 1). Some of them would use "the Monty's video" as proof for that claim.

2. My writings are to show supporting facts that "Hi-Res is not useless" (statement 2). Why some supporters believe iin statement 1? Part of the reason was caused by the mis-leading video. So, using facts to show that the video is misleading helps those supporters see the truth clearly.

Note: I didn't use "I can hear the difference" as any supporting "fact" for statement 2 because it is just my own personal experience. Similarly, I would consider the same if someone said "I cannot hear the difference". i.e. "You cannot hear it" is not a supporting fact for statement 1.

It looks to me people are still thinking like:

"I cannot hear the difference so it is useless" vs "I can hear the difference so it is not useless"

This is not something I was talking about. I was talking about objective facts. Not something you or I can hear or not.

 

[sunjam]

You are old enough that your hearing probably tops out at maybe 15khz maximum yet it seems like you are saying you still hear improvement with high res that science says doesn’t exist.

The benefits of Hi-Res is not just for high frequency. If you think Hi-Res is just for frequency higher than 20 or 22kHz, then I suggest you to find out more info regarding the benefits of Hi-Res

It is for the whole audible range.

Here is more info regarding Hi-Res (i.e. Over-sampling) (note: we are talking over-sampling here. Not up-sampling)

Over sampling helps to reconstruct final better audio signal from a DAC

1. Oversampling does help to reconstruct better audio signal as it improves anti-aliasing performance, increase resolution, and reduce noise.

2. In terms of sampling frequency, "Hi-Res" music (anything higher than 44k) is an example of oversampling (as in theory, only 44kHz is required). It happens during the ADC process. From point 1 above, it would help to regenerate better audio signal, hence, better music.

3. In terms of bit depth, "Hi-Res" music use more than 16 bit. It helps to reduce Quantization error. it would help to regenerate better audio signal, hence, better music.

4. The purpose for using "Hi-Res" input is not for its ability to reconstruct signal outside the audible range. It is just a by-product. Yes, based on sampling theory, we can use 768k sampling to reconstruct signal with frequencies up to 384k but again, this is not what we needed.

5. Hi-Res industry used the by-product I mentioned in point 4 above as a marketing material when they initially pushed for SACD. It caused people who knows about the audible frequency range to consider Hi-Res music as snake oil (but it is not snake oil for other reasons stated above)

 

[BS5711]

It seems that you have a lot of assumptions.

Let me make it clear:

1. Quite a lot of people claim that "Hi-Res is useless" (statement 1). Some of them would use "the Monty's video" as proof for that claim.

2. My writings are to show supporting facts that "Hi-Res is not useless" (statement 2). Why some supporters believe iin statement 1? Part of the reason was caused by the mis-leading video. So, using facts to show that the video is misleading helps those supporters see the truth clearly.

Note: I didn't use "I can hear the difference" as any supporting "fact" for statement 2 because it is just my own personal experience. Similarly, I would consider the same if someone said "I cannot hear the difference". i.e. "You cannot hear it" is not a supporting fact for statement 1.

It looks to me people are still thinking like:

"I cannot hear the difference so it is useless" vs "I can hear the difference so it is not useless"

This is not something I was talking about. I was talking about objective facts. Not something you or I can hear or not.

No you didn’t use the assertion that you can hear differences as proof but isn’t that still the premise of your argument ?

That is you hear something that science doesn’t agree with so you are debating the science ?

My point is, if my comments above are accurate, you debate the science rather than questioning your perception of what you hear and yet they are the only two factors involved and both are equally important.

Is that a fair critique ?

If I have missed something that is fine, my mistake and I am happy to own that.

 

[sander99]

Yes: I hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD <== not an argument for our discussion.

Of course it is an argument for our discussion because the reason why "Hi-Res" is useless for consumers is because nobody can hear the difference. Many, many people think they can hear the difference, but in a proper test they can not.
So, did you do a proper test or...

Maybe you thought you heard a difference with "high-res"? Maybe you did a uncontrolled, sighted or not properly level matched listening comparison?
Or maybe you inadvertently compared two different masters (or otherwise differently processed versions) of the same music?
Or maybe you compared using playback equipment that produces audible intermodulation distortion due to ultrasonic content in the "high-res" version (making "high-res" objectively worse but audibly different)?

(Or maybe you compared using a NOS DAC that messes up the 44.1/16 version more than it messes up the "high res" version?)

Oh, I forgot: Or maybe you compared using inappropiate gain staging in some way or another?

 

[sunjam]

No you didn’t use the assertion that you can hear differences as proof but isn’t that still the premise of your argument ?

That is you hear something that science doesn’t agree with so you are debating the science ?

My point is, if my comments above are accurate, you debate the science rather than questioning your perception of what you hear and yet they are the only two factors involved and both are equally important.

Is that a fair critique ?

If I have missed something that is fine, my mistake and I am happy to own that.

"No you didn’t use the assertion that you can hear differences as proof but isn’t that still the premise of your argument ?" <=== my hearing of the difference is NOT a proof of "Hi-Res is not useless"

"That is you hear something that science doesn’t agree with so you are debating the science ?" <=== I am not debating with the science as the science didn't say I cannot hear audible range.

"Is that a fair critique" ? <=== Fair if I was doing what you said. As stated above, I was not doing what you said.

 

[BS5711]

You are not understanding my question and I have no interest in going through multiple more posts to try and make sense of it with you.

 

[71 dB]

Did you read the source of the picture? How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio



Please have a look of the source for more details..

Yes, of course I read, but I don't just believe everything I read. I am critical of what I read. Proper DACs do not have staircases. If the picture is from the actual output, the DAC doesn't function as it should.

 

[castleofargh]

Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.

I was wrong, I imagine I mixed up AD and AK chips.
But please don't let someone easily admitting to being wrong, stop you from steady misrepresentation and dishonesty. Your clear errors are all excused and reinterpreted by you, but Monty not repeating in every sentence the entire list of conditions implied by context for his statements, that you justify as a good reason to put words in his mouth. You're sure you didn't mean tabloid journalist instead of critical thinker?

BTW, I still don't know what point you've been trying to make about hires in relation to those staircases, and so far nobody else volunteered to help you since I asked. Could it be that they also don't have a clue? Anybody?

 

[sunjam]

BTW, I still don't know what point you've been trying to make about hires in relation to those staircases, and so far nobody else volunteered to help you since I asked. Could it be that they also don't have a clue? Anybody?

From your reply, looks like you really cannot relate Hi-Res and those staircases...

Let me give you an insight before I give you my viewpoint.

=================

Whenever people ask "Is there any benefit in using Hi-Res for playing back music?" (the question) in forums (especially the ones who are supposed to be objective, science based, e.g. ASR), what would you think you would get from the "expert", or "experience user" in those forums?

Most of people (aka supporters) in those forums would say "Hi-Res is useless" (statement 1).

What are their supporting facts for their claim (i.e. statement 1)?

What item would the supporters show to the people who asked the question as supporting fact for statement 1?

Why the supporters show such item as supporting fact?

=================

Once you know the item and the reason why. You should have the answer for your question.

See if you can find the item and the reason yourself. I will give my viewpoint later.

Cheers!

 

[BS5711]

I don’t know where our man is from but I suspect there might be a language barrier or at the very least a difference if communication style conflict at play here.

Regardless, it seems very much like we have half a dozen or so parties all flogging different dead horses.

 

[Ghoostknight]

my current opinion based on HighRes floats around thinking that the only difference we really perceive is how the dac handles the input samplerate (or data format, pcm vs dsd)

so going from that theory upsampling cd quality should just be as good as high res files, when the master is the same.... which i it kinda is imo, its hard to say whether things are "exactly" the same but they are pretty close

there might be more to high res if we look at systems that can resolve up to 50-100khz, tho i would be "scared" to get more actual "crap" in the recording than something intended above 20khz for the majority of songs..

EDIT: just because i wrote this and actually didnt try 192khz vs 176khz with the BLA interface yet, i just tested this:
the BLA seems to handle 192khz way better than 176khz (the aune x8 dac before handled 176khz better), maybe this has something todo with 192khz actually being the highest supported samplerate and it maybe avoids a internal samplerate conversion step
overall sound improvement... i think it specially handles high frequencys better, sounds like way better transient response up there