[werd]

Hi Werd.  I agree with your sentiments about hi rez.  I personally don't buy into the theory I quoted but was merely plumbing for the technical counterpoint.  I think there is something to "supra-sonic" information that is meaningful sonically much like there is with super tweeters. 

A second interesting question is "what do people think of upsampled, faux hi rez?"  Better, worse....?

Although i used it lots with my cd transports i think upsampling screws with the timing and rythym on my dac. don't use it as much any more - if at all. I have an upsample button  caveman in me likes to press  buttons....

[bdiament]

Hi Geardaddy,

Barry and others, here is a piece of verbiage on this I have come across in the past and I thought I would throw it out there as a theoretical counterpoint to hi rez...

For starters, I'd be willing to bet that person hasn't inconvenienced himself by actually reading Nyquist's work and probably doesn't know it was formulated long before digital audio ever existed.

The rest is arguing about rainbows with blind men.
In short, we can't hear 4 Hz either.  Ask folks who live in earthquake prone areas if it can be sensed though. 

As to the benefits of wide bandwidth, research done by KEF decades ago showed how bandwidth and time response are tied together.  With regard to the benefits of high sampling rates, all one need do is make the same recording at different sample rates.  They either hear the difference or they don't.  I do - even if I can't hear a 40 kHz sine wave.

As we all know, there are many folks on Internet audio sites who recite "theory" as put forth by others, at least as well as they can "understand" (perhaps too strong a word?) said theory.  These folks are free of the encumbrance of actual, direct listening experience.  All I can say is, knowledge does not enter an open mouth.   
Let them post what they will.  There is too much good sounding music to be enjoyed.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[Geardaddy]

Werd, I agree.  Pure Music, a program a lot of us use, has an upsampling feature.  Some like it and say it adds air, etc.  I noticed a little bit of that and shifting sound staging as have others (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Views-Using-Upsampling-Pure-Music): 

With Native resolution (44.1), no upsampling, the music was big and upfront on my system, a close perspective, this was made even more so with Classic compared to Maximum Fidelity.

"With upsampling to 4x resolution (176.4), and Maximum Fidelity, a more distant perspective was achieved, it was if I had moved from the front row to the middle of the hall, at the performance space.

Then if Classic replaced Maximum Fidelity, still with 176.4, it sounded if I moved closer to the stage, but not as close as with Native resolution.

I found with the more distant perspective, there appeared to be more space between the instruments. I also found that I had more emotional involvement with the music, I found my self singing along and moving with the rhythm more."

And from their website testimonial page (http://www.channld.com/puremusic/): 

"...the upsampling-derived improvements were for the most part so marked that I found myself in possession of a whole new jukebox... I call this free money." - Michele Surdi, Sixmoons.com October, 2010

While the presentation is intriguing initially with that false sense of air and space, the tonality and musical rightness seems off.  My wife had the same preferences in a blinded fashion.

Barry?  Upsampling bad?

[bdiament]

Hi Geardaddy,

...Barry?  Upsampling bad?

My answer?  It depends.

For my ears, when done while the music plays, always bad, even with the best sample rate conversion algorithms.  (And the ones in players and DACs, even the most expensive ones, don't in my experience, get remotely close to results provided by the best.)

When done offline (i.e. as a separate process before listening) it depends on the algorithm.  Most, to my ears, brighten and harden the sound.  The best may provide some benefits insomuch as the gentler filtering, well above the audible spectrum can result in more natural sound, compared to the usual steep, brickwall filter just above the audible spectrum.

So, in some rare instances, I think sonics can be improved but only when the very best algorithms are used in offline processes separate from and before listening.  However, even the best upsampling will never even begin to approach a real high resolution recording.  (Or, put another way, once something has been Redbooked - to coin a term - the damage has been done.)

With that in mind, I tend to do all my own listening at the native rate of the file. 

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[Geardaddy]

word...

[Geardaddy]

Barry and others, I have some other questions/observations:

1.  In regards to my performance of digital gear and power (logic behind Nordost article), have you found linear power supplies to improve computer and/or dac performance?  A friend of mine who is on the hi rez train and owns the Amarra 4 dac (which is essentially what Barry owns) recently got a linear power supply for his mac mini and he was shocked at the improvement of the performance.  In particular, he noted how the apparent gap between good redbook and hi rez (he has 24/96 up to 24/192) narrowed significantly to the point where the differences were marginal at best.  It was as if more "information" was being extracted from redbook lending credence to the argument that there is enough data there for good performance.

2.  Along the lines of redbook vs hi rez, what is there to be said about performance of specific chips?  I have heard it said that performance of different chips can vary based on the resolution of the material.  In other words, hi rez capable chips can adulterate redbook due to filters present and vice-versa. 

[bdiament]

Hi Geardaddy,

Barry and others, I have some other questions/observations:

1.  In regards to my performance of digital gear and power (logic behind Nordost article), have you found linear power supplies to improve computer and/or dac performance?  A friend of mine who is on the hi rez train and owns the Amarra 4 dac (which is essentially what Barry owns) recently got a linear power supply for his mac mini and he was shocked at the improvement of the performance.  In particular, he noted how the apparent gap between good redbook and hi rez (he has 24/96 up to 24/192) narrowed significantly to the point where the differences were marginal at best.  It was as if more "information" was being extracted from redbook lending credence to the argument that there is enough data there for good performance.

I have not tried a different supply for my Mac but I have tried a number of third party supplies for my ULN-8 (upon which the Amarra is based).  I've tried sealed lead acid (SLA) battery and linear supplies.

With the battery supply, I found that the low level hiss I can hear through the speakers - when the volume control is advanced far beyond anyplace I'd ever have it while I'm in the room - disappeared.  What also disappeared (at all playback levels) was the phenomenally natural bass of the ULN-8, replaced with a somewhat ordinary, much less defined "digital" bass.

With the linear supply, I could detect no difference whatsoever, other than the added shelf space and considerable expenditure involved with the third party supply.

I think audiophiles sometimes lose perspective in consideration of parts over the whole of a design.  B.J. Buchalter (designer of the ULN-8) did a wonderful job in picking parts that work together superbly.  All third party supplies were returned; I'm using the one that came with my ULN-8.

2.  Along the lines of redbook vs hi rez, what is there to be said about performance of specific chips?  I have heard it said that performance of different chips can vary based on the resolution of the material.  In other words, hi rez capable chips can adulterate redbook due to filters present and vice-versa.

This is another example of the (in my view) misguided focus on parts rather than the whole design.  One can pick any chip they want and find designs that use it well and others that are not so good, regardless of the parts inventory.  Personally, I couldn't care less if B.J. used bird's nests and baling wire inside the ULN-8.  It is the fact that it sounds as transparent as it does that makes me a fan.  (It uses chips from AKM but I've also heard devices using the same chip that are totally undistinguished; more proof - for me, at least - that the signal must pass through a lot more than just one part in any given design.)

If a device performs better at some resolutions than others, I attribute this to the design and not to any parts.  (For my ears, the ULN-8 doesn't "care" what resolution the source file is.  It gives me back the sound of its input, regardless of resolution.)

All just my perspective, of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[Geardaddy]

Your findings with the battery are surprising.  I am wondering if others have found that?  I know there is a big push towards battery supplies for the mini recently.  Since the computer is the weakest link in your chain, some form of power upgrade in addition to isolation and other software tweaks would make sense.  My friend (Gary Anderson) noted dramatic changes with adding an external PS to the computer alone (not the dac) such that redbook performance approached and equaled his hi rez files. 

I was recently doing some sleuthing about a new dac from the French designer Neodio, and one attribute that people were throwing around on AudioExotics was "weight."  This dac presented music with an analog-like weight to the music that is missing in most digital gear.  An organic, life-like density to music that does not sacrifice detail, extension, dynamics, etc.  I think that is what most people are after.

[bdiament]

Hi Geardaddy,

I don't find my experience with the battery supply surprising at all.  Its chief advantage is less noise.  (I only hear noise from my ULN-8 when the volume is advanced far beyond where I'd ever have it for listening to music - even for shaking the walls with AC/DC.)  It isn't going deliver the current necessary for honest reproduction of dynamics (or to preserve anything close to the superb bass reproduction of the ULN-8) and what current it does deliver starts to fall off as soon as use begins.

Redbook at its best can be quite listenable but if I ever heard that "it approached or equaled" high res, I'd suspect something wrong with the high res playback.

Just my perspective of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[werd]

Barry and others, I have some other questions/observations:

1.  In regards to my performance of digital gear and power (logic behind Nordost article), have you found linear power supplies to improve computer and/or dac performance?  A friend of mine who is on the hi rez train and owns the Amarra 4 dac (which is essentially what Barry owns) recently got a linear power supply for his mac mini and he was shocked at the improvement of the performance.  In particular, he noted how the apparent gap between good redbook and hi rez (he has 24/96 up to 24/192) narrowed significantly to the point where the differences were marginal at best.  It was as if more "information" was being extracted from redbook lending credence to the argument that there is enough data there for good performance.

2.  Along the lines of redbook vs hi rez, what is there to be said about performance of specific chips?  I have heard it said that performance of different chips can vary based on the resolution of the material.  In other words, hi rez capable chips can adulterate redbook due to filters present and vice-versa.

Hello

When he said it became very marginal at best. Can we be sure that its not making everything sound redbook including the 192khz? If  he is saying that the redbook is now at 192khz caliber that would be excellent. I am inclined to believe that the hi - rez got nerfed and not the redbook got better.

[vhiner]

In my opinion -- based on my experience with the high rez titles that I own -- the care given in recording, mixing, and mastering is much more important than whether or not a given title is delivered in 'high rez' to the consumer.  (When I say 'mastering' here I'm thinking mainly of things like EQ and how compression is applied.)

With the high rez titles that I own I am hard pressed to hear a clear difference in quality that I can attirbute to it being high rez.  However, I own some standard 'redbook' recordings that make me completely forget that there is such a thing as high rez when I listen to them.  I'll cite the MFSL remaster of Beck's "Sea Change" as one such title...absolutely exquisite...and I own the SACD version as well.  Also, something like Steve Hoffman's remaster of "McCartney" is just so good that I can't really imagine it sounding any better.

Granted, you could say that my system and/or my ears are not up to the task, but so be it.  I'm just relating my experience.

Joe

Joe,

I couldn't agree more...both with your assessment of hi rez and the recordings you cite. Thanks for sharing because it consoles me that maybe what i hear is accurate.

Vance

[Geardaddy]

Werd, I am not sure how adding a linear PS to a computer wound homogenize the sound, improving Redbook and dumbing down 24/192?  From a technical standpoint, I am not sure how that would happen.  I referenced the Nordhost research about power and jitter performance earlier in the thread, and that may be a partial explanation.  It would be interesting to test the mini using that software and compare the stock switching supply to a linear supply.

I guess another question to ask is are we extracting everything we can from our digital source material?  Based on Barry's comments about the discrepancy between advertised and measured bit extraction, I would say in most cases no.  We audiophiles take a lot of pride in our gear, and it is hard to admit that it is lackluster.   A recent review of a french CDP (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=93127.0) on AC brought to light the experience of hearing things in his Redbook collection that he had not heard before. 

After being at Axpona and hearing a lot of very expensive rigs, I felt that most digital front ends still struggle with recreating that natural, supple, organic, analog thing with image density and weight, etc.  This was with and without hi rez. 

As a disclaimer, I am not some stealth analog guy gunning down the digital revolution.....just thinking about this out loud....   

[werd]

Gear Daddy, everytime i read your posts i hear the dude saying it to me.......  I keep hearing "the Dude".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY

and some more hi rez dude stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4T9DGjGAUw&feature=related


I think a good rule of thumb for hi rez and system comparing is a distinct difference between  redbook and good hirez recordings. If there is no difference between hi rez and redbook then i am inclined to think the system has been nerfed back down to redbook. Redbook should not reach 192. There should always be a noticeable difference between the two playbacks.

I am big source guy. The source is the most important piece imo. So if this guy has gone out and gotten a new ps for his Mac and its narrowed the differences significantly between 192 and 44 then i would say the ps sucks...... The transport or dac - in any playback fashion - tailors the sound more than anything else imo. Arguably more than speakers. So he's gone and nerfed his resolution.