[bigshot]

I got a great batch of CDs in the mail today.

 

[sunjam]

I got tons of CDs in my drive today. I am playing them either in DSD256 or PCM768k

p.s.: up-sampling is not same as over-sampling. I am not going to discuss about up-sampling as many people, including some experts, are having issues in understanding with over-sampling, aka Hi-Res, already.

 

[Ghoostknight]

I am not going to discuss about up-sampling as many people, including some experts, are having issues in understanding with over-sampling, aka Hi-Res, already.

isnt over-sampling that what the dac is doing? this has nothing todo with high res

 

[castleofargh]

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!

More people who probably did not say it, are saying it. Great, let it be known that the strawman is not targeting just one man anymore.

You (also) got it wrong about staircases. People don't try to demonstrate that hires is useless by saying there are no staircases. That makes no sense, what would that tell about hires? It is not a demonstration about hires at all, and is not what was often done.
It's a reaction to some particular marketing like Sony for DSD that used the FUD tactic about staircases to sell the idea that what people needed were way more samples. Obviously, Sony wasn't going to talk about bit depth to sell a 1bit format. They're marketing people, not cretins. They just hope, we are.
But because the output of a DAC with a proper and necessary filter does not have staircases, some people have logically been saying that this particular argument and those graphs showing digital samples as staircases were BS. Not to argue against hires, or even DSD, but to simply say that this particular BS argument was BS. Because it is.

Trying, oh so poorly, to rehabilitate the staircases doesn't make any (stair)case for or against hires. Just like wanting to get rid of the idiots who glue themselves on the road doesn't make me anti Earth. They're just doing something stupid that bothers the average guy going to work. It does F all to remedy climate change.


I now feel like I might understand your reasoning, It makes me think even more that you should delete your article and pretend it never existed. That's what someone against pseudo-science would do.

 

[sunjam]

isnt over-sampling that what the dac is doing? this has nothing todo with high res

A DAC is indeed doing internal up-sampling. Up-sampling from wiki

Hi-Res is over-sampling. It happens in the ADC process. Over-sampling from wiki

 

[Ryokan]

One of my daps has the option of upsampling between DSD 64/128/256/512. Try as I might I cannot hear a difference.

 

[gregorio]

That is you have personally experienced differences but science indicates the technical differences should not be audible.

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...

These two quotes are not absolutely true, there are (albeit “unreasonable”) conditions under which it is possible to hear the difference. One or possibly both of which is what the OP is fallaciously relying on: Playing CD (44/16) res through a filterless NOS DAC results in a bunch of spurious ultrasonic freqs (“images”) and a gradual freq roll-off starting at around 2kHz. If you play hi-res, specifically higher sample rates (such as 192kHz), through a filterless NOS DAC then the roll-off and the “images” occur much higher in the spectrum. Therefore it is possible to hear a difference, if not from the potential distortion (IMD), then from not having that gradual roll-off at 2kHz, which is audible. I’ve heard this myself with a NOS DAC.

However, I completely agree with you @sander99 , because using an effectively broken DAC definitely does NOT constitute “a proper test”, it’s utter nonsense of course. Nevertheless, this is the “utter nonsense” the OP is repeatedly posting!

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"

For the distribution of commercial audio recordings (music/sound) there is no audible difference and therefore it is useless. It is not useless for snake oil salesmen though!

So, using facts to show that the video is misleading helps those supporters see the truth clearly.

That is a LIE, you have not used “facts”! What you have actually used is a cherry picked fact relating to a broken DAC/filter, while deliberately ignoring all the other facts! Specifically: How digital audio is mandated work and the fact that almost all DACs comply with that. You are therefore misleading “those supporters” away from the truth, the exact opposite of helping them “see the truth clearly”! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF! Furthermore, cherry-picking a fact is the exact opposite of the definition of “critical thinking” you yourself posted and you are promoting pseudoscience, which also is the exact opposite of what you claimed. It’s ridiculous!

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.

I’ve already stated that Hi-res (>16bit) provides a greater dynamic range and is therefore useful when recording because it provides more headroom. It does not provide any benefit to consumers however, because headroom is not necessary on playback! The only other difference with hi-res is for ultrasonic content, although that is more of a liability than a benefit!

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

No, it does NOT! It does not improve aliasing (it does not affect it at all), it does not increase resolution (the resolution cannot be higher after oversampling than it was before oversampling) and it does not reduce noise (it does not affect noise at all)!

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.

No it does NOT! Hi-res audio formats are formats with a sampling rate greater than 44.1 or 48kHz and bit depths greater than 16bit (with the exception of DSD). That does NOT “happen during the ADC process”! The initial sampling during the ADC process employs massively higher sample rates but at significantly reduced bit depths ~6bits. This has already been explained to you, therefore you are deliberately lying!

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.

No it does NOT! There is no quantisation error when recording 16, 20 or 24bit, unless you use a broken system that does not apply dithering but there are no such broken systems. Quantisation error is entirely removed (except in 1bit systems), replaced/converted into dither noise, so it does not “help 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.

False, as stipulated by Nyquist-Shannon, the bandwidth of captured and reproduced signal is dictated by the sample rate, it is NOT a byproduct! I agree we do not need freqs up to 384kHz (in fact that’s a liability), we don’t need anything beyond 20kHz, so it’s bizarre that’s what you’re arguing for!

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)

Yes, SACD was snake oil. And as your “other reasons stated above” are ALL false, you have have not demonstrated that “it is not snake oil”, if anything, all you’ve done is helped to confirm that it is SNAKE OIL!

G

 

[sunjam]

More people who probably did not say it, are saying it. Great, let it be known that the strawman is not targeting just one man anymore.

You (also) got it wrong about staircases. People don't try to demonstrate that hires is useless by saying there are no staircases. That makes no sense, what would that tell about hires? It is not a demonstration about hires at all, and is not what was often done.
It's a reaction to some particular marketing like Sony for DSD that used the FUD tactic about staircases to sell the idea that what people needed were way more samples. Obviously, Sony wasn't going to talk about bit depth to sell a 1bit format. They're marketing people, not cretins. They just hope, we are.
But because the output of a DAC with a proper and necessary filter does not have staircases, some people have logically been saying that this particular argument and those graphs showing digital samples as staircases were BS. Not to argue against hires, or even DSD, but to simply say that this particular BS argument was BS. Because it is.

Trying, oh so poorly, to rehabilitate the staircases doesn't make any (stair)case for or against hires. Just like wanting to get rid of the idiots who glue themselves on the road doesn't make me anti Earth. They're just doing something stupid that bothers the average guy going to work. It does F all to remedy climate change.


I now feel like I might understand your reasoning, It makes me think even more that you should delete your article and pretend it never existed. That's what someone against pseudo-science would do.

I bet you miss something here.

First, let's look at why he created "the Monty's video"?

Based on https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young (i.e. the link provided in the Monty's video), he said:

As a followup to all the mail I got about digital waveforms and stairsteps, I demonstrate actual digital behavior on real equipment in our video Digital Show & Tell so you need not simply take me at my word here!

He also explicitly mentioned the above link in the Monty's video:

You attempted to re-interpret his true intention and tried to create an interpretation that he was just talking about Hi-Res downloads (aka streaming), not about Hi-Res.

However, his true intention was revealed in his article:

The Monty's video is the follow up of his article regarding his earlier claim "192kHz music files make no sense" on his article. He wanted to show no staircases in the video in order to support his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

In short,

1. He claims "192kHz music files make no sense" (as shown on his article, https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

2. The "Monty's video" is the follow up of that article (i.e. to support "no staircases" and perfect reconstruction of sine wave using 44.1/16 source). He used these as supporting facts for his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

Before we proceed further, do you agree the 2 points above?

 

[sander99]

A DAC is indeed doing internal up-sampling. Up-sampling from wiki

Hi-Res is over-sampling. It happens in the ADC process. Over-sampling from wiki

The word oversampling is also commonly used for upsampling in a DAC. I am surprised, can it be that you don't know what NOS in NOS DAC stands for?

 

[sander99]

I bet you miss something here.

First, let's look at why he created "the Monty's video"?

Based on https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young (i.e. the link provided in the Monty's video), he said:

He also explicitly mentioned the above link in the Monty's video:



You attempted to re-interpret his true intention and tried to create an interpretation that he was just talking about Hi-Res downloads (aka streaming), not about Hi-Res.

However, his true intention was revealed in his article:


The Monty's video is the follow up of his article regarding his earlier claim "192kHz music files make no sense" on his article. He wanted to show no staircases in the video in order to support his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

In short,

1. He claims "192kHz music files make no sense" (as shown on his article, https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

2. The "Monty's video" is the follow up of that article (i.e. to support "no staircases" and perfect reconstruction of sine wave using 44.1/16 source). He used these as supporting facts for his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

Before we proceed further, do you agree the 2 points above?

You are just making a silly diversionary maneuver. He is talking in the context of music files for consumers. And whether it's downloads or streaming or whatever is completely irrelevant. The point is that 192kHz music files for consumers make no sense.

 

[sunjam]

You are just making a silly diversionary maneuver. He is talking in the context of music files for consumers. And whether it's downloads or streaming or whatever is completely irrelevant. The point is that 192kHz music files for consumers make no sense.

100% agree. "And whether it's downloads or streaming or whatever is completely irrelevant. The point is that [Monty's article and video claims] 192kHz music files for consumers make no sense"

 

[gregorio]

1. He claims "192kHz music files make no sense" (as shown on his article, https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

2. The "Monty's video" is the follow up of that article (i.e. to support "no staircases" and perfect reconstruction of sine wave using 44.1/16 source). He used these as supporting facts for his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

Before we proceed further, do you agree the 2 points above?

Before we proceed further you should address the refutations you’re ignoring!

While waiting, I’ll answer you question though.
Providing I do NOT rely on: Cherrypicking facts, a broken DAC (or a filter option that emulates one), a lack of critical thinking, pseudoscience or just outright lies/falsehoods, then of course I agree with the 2 points above, because they are essentially correct!

G

 

[castleofargh]

I bet you miss something here.

First, let's look at why he created "the Monty's video"?

Based on https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young (i.e. the link provided in the Monty's video), he said:

He also explicitly mentioned the above link in the Monty's video:



You attempted to re-interpret his true intention and tried to create an interpretation that he was just talking about Hi-Res downloads (aka streaming), not about Hi-Res.

However, his true intention was revealed in his article:


The Monty's video is the follow up of his article regarding his earlier claim "192kHz music files make no sense" on his article. He wanted to show no staircases in the video in order to support his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

In short,

1. He claims "192kHz music files make no sense" (as shown on his article, https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

2. The "Monty's video" is the follow up of that article (i.e. to support "no staircases" and perfect reconstruction of sine wave using 44.1/16 source). He used these as supporting facts for his claim ("192kHz music files make no sense")

Before we proceed further, do you agree the 2 points above?

Yes, I reinterpret while you look right into his soul.
Have fun feeding those pointless delusions. I've had enough of pretending to have a logic conversation.

 

[bigshot]

We are attracting these irritating people like moths to a flame, and I don’t know what we can do to stop it without employing thread bans.

 

[493756]

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

What I did was find a way to hear a setup I did not like and a set up I did like and figure out why.

One example is I used a ESS DAC with balanced and single outs to 4 headphone amps and listened to songs Angst (Rammsgein) and Billie Jean (MJ) at the same sample rates -doesn’t necessarily mean always 192k either - to first step for me was why it doesn’t sound right to me. I then moved it to a modi MB2 (os and nos), r2r Hifiman, and a Deneafrips r2r.

The same 2 songs over and over for many days.

What I found is the ess dac made the songs go into shrill mode and causes fatigue faster. The sound in between beats is full apparent in the r2r dacs and somewhat apparent in the mb2, while the ess (AKM too) are not.

This same signature carries to all headphones I have. 660s2, Ayra Organic, Phillips fidelo…

Some of the problems I have seen over the years is people do not find the sound they like first. They just throw darts at everything being blind.

Once I found the signature I liked then I would find ways to make that signature more resolute by changing the from 44.1 to higher and see if I can perceive it.

It is about what we like and when it comes to the way we hear it and until we take the time to understand what we like we will forever chase the rabbit to more promises.

I chased the ess and AKM dacs for years until I realised r2r, burr brown, modi mb.

The sad reality is unless we know someone in the hobby to us to find the signature we like takes money. However once we find the foundation we like we can then better build up on that. Like I perceive a difference in clicking on spdif now and when a usb has a lot of noise. However the signature I like is still there.