Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- Objective analysis of Don Grusin Out of Thin Air high-resolution album produced by PS Audio Octave label. Analysis of both DSD and PCM versions is performed showing whether it has value over standard resolution.
Yes, but these files can make your DAC go into "hi-res mode" sometimes they may change the display colour as well.
lol, let me guess; they call you dont-worry-be-happy Jonh
@@Lauren080508 - ?
These reviews are making the CEO at PS change the display color of his face to red.
@@johnsmith1474 this had me cracking up.
@@XX-121 me too. :)
This is one of the problems that can occur when a bunch of audiophiles get together and start recording music - they concentrate so much on the recording chain that they forget about the performance and vibe/mood it creates. Some of the greatest sounding records with the greatest performances and music, were recorded between the 50's and late 80's using tape and analogue gear, complete with all its inherent flaws. None of that mattered though as the producer got the best performance out of the artists by hook or crook, and the engineers knew how to get the best sound possible out of the equipment at their disposal. Having an all DSD system is pointless if the music you're recording or the way it forces you to record a performance isn't on point. If the music is also poor, well, it's an exercise in futility.
Very interesting to learn about the flaws in DSD64 and how it carried over to the PCM files, so thanks for picking up on that!
Or an exercise in making money from a limited catalog…
@@JingoLoBa57 exactly! That’s why when I played with higher sampling rates and could not notice any difference thought that either my gears or my ears are defective lol! Looks like the tracks are exactly the same if no worse!
In reflex cameras, they add filters to stop infrared and ultraviolet light. Because, of course, we don't see IR nor UV, but they deteriorate the quality of the image captured by the sensor. It's not exactly the same problem here, but it's similar ultimately.
Perhaps PS Audio ought to change their name to BS Audio.
Hard to know this is a trend with them. But yeah.
At least change name to BS records.
Hi Amir! I’d like to clarify some part of your statement about DSD and noise shaping.
The noise in a 1-bit stream system is inevitable from a DSP perspective, there is no known way of removing the noise from a “strict” 1-bit stream. Noise shaping just so happens that if we increase the sample rate of a 1-bit system, the noise will get pushed further to the high frequency side of the spectrum (the noise shape doesn’t change relative to the sampling frequency, but the signal’s spectrum is lowered compared to the sampling frequency), the noise “shape” is depending on the order of the delta-sigma converter, which mathematically results in a lower noise floor in the low frequency band compared to the quantization noise floor of PCM (comparing CD vs SACD), which mathematically is mostly flat across the board. Of course, as the streaming age came, we are no longer bounded by the physical format of the discs. And the bit depth of PCM exceeded the 16-bit we had in CD, and DSD files can often have a higher sample rate than DSD64. So, mathematically speaking, when comparing the noise floor of two different system (in the audible band) we need to specify the exact sample rate/bit-depth to see which one actually wins out. Another interesting aspect of this topic is that the way many high-end PCM ADCs that are used in audio recordings are built. To the best of my knowledge(please correct me if I’m wrong), many PCM ADCs are built with a delta-sigma converter and a decimator stage. To put things simple, the delta-sigma converter basically outputs the 1-bit DSD stream from the analog signal, and the decimator digitally filters and drops the sample rate to PCM rate. Which is actually leveraging the low noise floor of the 1-bit streams at audio frequency.
In a proper DSD direct DAC, the output stream is usually filtered with an analog filter to remove the bulk of the noise beyond audible frequency to make amplifiers and speakers happy.
Hi Han. Your comment is too long to address in a youtube comment. :) But briefly, the filter is there because the PDM stream is full of high frequency spectrum. It is that which it removes. To remove the noise shaped spectrum requires another filter. On it being a function of 1 bit conversion, yes and no. Yes in that they always have this. No in that the feedback in delta sigma can and does provide the noise shaping.
And yes, there are higher rate DSDs and I mentioned that in the video. The problem in running with that rate alone is that the encoding format is highly limited compared to PCM. So we need to look at a rectangular channel of sample rate vs bit depth. High res PCM has much larger window in this regard.
But the noise above 22k is only one of the problems. The other problem is that there is no musical information about 22k, and all Paul does is brag about how awesome DSD is for high frequency content. Then he releases this garbage.
1 bit was originally intended to allow a CD to be played in a cheap battery powered portable player, as they use less power than a current sourced R2R DAC and the need for expensive precision resistors. It's 2D sounding and a tedious technical listening experience, so I gave up on it about 10 years ago, I much prefer old relics like the TDA1543(x8) for my musical thrills. Having got into so many arguments on forums during that time, it's good to see I was at somewhat correct in my assessment of the delta sigma type DACs, the words holographic and timbre are now much more commonplace thanks I feel to the resurgence of R2R/analogue demodulation.
@@AudioScienceReview
Hi Amir,
Thanks for pointing out about the noise shaping in delta-sigma ADCs. I overlooked the fact that the sum of all quantization noise energy is fixed and is spread across the spectrum. I have to go through a few publications from chip vendors to get myself more familiar with this topic :)
In the first comment, I was trying to point out that the PCM is derived from the 1-bit stream. Indeed, if converted properly, there should be no information loss in the band of interest. And yes, the DSD stream is a pain to work with on the production side, prohibiting the use of almost all DSP, and inefficient in file size.
Btw, from the papers that I read, it seems like all of them are using one single brick wall FIR filter to cutoff the high frequency spectrum and the noise shape at once instead of two.
I'm inclined to sort of "split the difference" here.
In theory a DSD64 recording could have audio content up to about 40 kHz...
(I cannot claim to have heard a difference there but some people claim that they do.)
So, at least in theory, there could be some high frequency audio content "hidden" inside that noise floor...
And that offers a reason to convert it to PCM at 88k or 96k to get "everything that's in the DSD version".
But clearly there is NOTHING there that would even theoretically benefit from 192k rather than 96k.
I’m learning a ton from your videos. I’ve been skeptical of cables and conditioners for a long time and now I can add this my list. Now I have to pass this on to friends which might be worse than talking politics. 😄
ASR Does a great job with his testing and exposes some very questionable engineering of middle to high end gear. Easy to write great copy to hide poor performance. I am beginning to not trust other sources I have in the past. Any reviewer who does no testing I have stopped watching.
Unfortunately people still fall for all these crap.
Really enjoy your analysis of this Amir. I think most, if not all of us want the best sound quality and more importantly the best listening experience we can get. Our quest for that panacea it futile at best. But hey, we’re going to try to achieve that. There are way too many variables to ever consistently achieve that. Not the least of which is our mental state when listening to a track. All that said, the chase for pleasure is half of the fun.
Thanks for your passion for what you do and sharing that with the audiophile world.
I started using the first tool for converting my DSD albums (mostly from nativedsd) to PCM using the right cutoff to preserve dynamics and reduce noise. I'm amazed PS Audio missed that. Not a big deal as I can do it myself, I have the album.
It is such common knowledge that I am amazed they didn't know it.
@@AudioScienceReview Thanks for the great breakdown of Paul McGowan's audiophoolery Amir. I'm not surprised at all! PS Audio/Octave Records create snake oil products. Plain and simple. I'm a year late to this review, but I had to chime in. Better late than never, right?
I like this hi-res music file analysis series of videos. Hopefully you’ll do more of them.
Your comment about the blah-music is the most telling. Subjective, of course, but critical is the goal is to enjoy *music*. I prefer interesting music recorded poorly (e.g., garage punk) to oh-so-special-audiophile elevator music. But just on the off-chance of the two meeting, this was very interesting. Thanks for putting all the work in, and spending five orange mocha frappucinos of your own money on top of it! Still quite a bit cheaper than open access fees in sci pubs. LOL!
Fully agree....
Amir, I just revisited your previous music reviews. What you have shown has been examples of bad digital recordings. Could you possibly show us examples of some good recordings. I would be much appreciated.
Yes, that has been on my Todo list for quite a while. :)
@@AudioScienceReview Jordi Savall newest Beethoven symphony cycle (Beethoven Révolution) is a truly hi-res, without supersonic trash, and is beeeautiful (period instruments, imaculous sound, bright, dynamic, intimous and magestic on right time...). This is the last ri-res music then I bought, first time I see the frequency spectrum and the visual just confirm what I listen... all symphonies costs only 10 bucks more than this junk sucks background music.
Hi Amir. As you know, I've been saying the same thing about DSD vs. PCM for years. The inherent noise in the ultrasonic range is a nonstarter. I would take issue with you regarding the statement that placing microphones inside a piano produces less than ideal results. ALL of the AIX Records piano recordings are a combination of 2-stereo pairs about 6-12" above the strings AND another pair at the back of the acoustically rich performance venue. The results are amazing. Don't know if you've listened to Bryan Pezzone's release on AIX Records or heard the Terry Trotter solo piano tracks but they are incredible. Otherwise, good job holding Octave and PS Audio (and others who praise the worth of DSD over PCM) accountable for more BS.
Oh Hi Mark. So good to see you here. I shouldn't have said or implied that close mic is bad. Clearly that has to be an element of it. But per your note, one needs to also capture the ambiance. In this case, the piano is in the corner of a small room so there is no ambience to capture. Your recordings are always superb so I will for sure check Bryan Pizzone's album.
@@AudioScienceReview Sigma Delta modulators DACs are native to DSD industry standard. This is a fact. DACs are machines not how humans hear. We don’t process the 0 1s the DAC does. Ultra noise is well, Ultra noise.
DSP, dithering, noise shaping do add noise to improve sound is wrong?
No DAC can do 24 bit perfect but we use 24 bit files and we use high sampling rates to relax digital filters inside a dac no? Does R2R do 24 bit? Maybe, But they don’t measure well. :)
@As the World Burns I know I have two. Really great sounding DACs! And you can play 6 bit DSD like DSD is archived in Sony for some master tapes that are Deteriorating. the R2R which is a resistor series can also be used to calculate as low and high filters to eliminate the “ultrasound noise” just like you would with the digital filters. If they didn’t speakers would be damaged every time someone played a DSD file.
A dac is a digital to analog converter (that means it’s goes through a processor and computing, it’s a damn machine!) showing the ultra noise in the music files hasn’t been a secret; it’s been known since 1999. Literally thousands of engineering papers discussing DSD processing.
I think people are more crapping on Paul’s assessment that it sounds “better” than PCM. Based on Measurements PCM is “better” and those who support this bit of fact take it too far as well! It’s really petty!
@@AudioScienceReview The noise in those frequencies aren’t audible. I downloaded MusicScope and ran a high pass filter at 2205 (the audible region) with basically no music left in the audible region and it was dead silence.
Humans can’t hear about 20 khz it’s a moot point to show the noise above. The filters of 50 khz and 100 khz on 20 year old SACD are for the steep and slow filters. To make the soundstage wide or narrow. Moreover don’t headphones and speakers have frequencies ranges about the Audible human frequencies like 50khz.
Why? Because the low and high pass filters aren’t perfect.
SACD is pretty much dead physical format and you keep conflating it with DSD files or DSD data CDs which is open sourced.
The question should be then if the noise in the Audible regions affect the audible region and be how much?
Well doesn’t dithering + noise shaping affect the sound? I can of course run a “test” at 60db and make the dithering noise presented and a video about with a Eureka moment of Aha. There’s noise in the signal. But that noise IMPROVES the dbs and quantization errors even in PCM. Haha
Most DAC and DAC manufacturing chips have Datasheets and developed their own digital filters. And DAC Chips are have sigma delta modulators so there’s direct DSD streamed data. That’s why it’s call Direct Stream Digital (a marketing term I know but accurate)
You hate DSD and PS Audio that’s fine but your “science” is misleading.
There also low and high pass filters you can build on the DAC analog board.
Moreover, even the Sound engineer Guru Mark records in PCM 192/24 and says he “believes” humans can hear those frequencies subconsciously.
Pssst, PCM also have digital filters in “cut offs” frequencies
Why not download Marks files and put them to the test?
I’m sure he has nothing above 24000 khz. Running a low past filter to cut the noise. With the 192 sample points and selling it for 29-59 dollars as well haha
@@AudioScienceReview Put Mark’s Bryan Pizzone album through this test and post a video.
Oh man, I can already picture Paul's okee doke happy uncle response to this one. He'll probably blame Stan Warren.
If you go missing, we'll know to look for you in the secret dungeon at PS Audio 🤣🤣
Where he will dismantle the shoddy PS dungeon door and post a video about how easy it was to escape.
Dear Sir love your videos. This is great stuff you are teaching us. Must say though I do not think you will be getting an Xmas card this year from PS Audio. Mind you with all your videos I have watched. I do not think you will get any from Audiophiles in general. I love your content. I have learned so much and had my eyes opened. I think you are a brave man. I think you have poked the hornets nest. Sounds like a lot of people may feel they have spent good money for very little return. Keep up the good work. Man I think you will go down in history. By the way my hearing is way better than normal people. Well I think it is. Because My wife keeps telling me I am just a grumpy old BAT.
PS Audio under attack just like how Schiit Audio became under attack. This is entertaining and educational.
amir has phasers set to level 5 kill all dodgy garbage digital file music
Schiit stepped up to the challenge and delivered.
Schitt's reaction was how you'd want an audio company to react: Learn from the feedback and become awesome.
PS Audio should take note in that regard, but hey maybe they will after all.
I should have watched this before buying one of their downloads! lol thanks
This is a certified skull emoji moment for PS Audio.
They have nothing but skull emojis, everyday and forever. It's all snake oil.
You mean it's juvenile?
He should start a gofundme so he can purchase every P.S. Audio item in the catalog, and demolish them in one video after another. 🤣🤣😂😂
Well, my intention isn't to destroy every product they have. :) I just test and report on what they are building as they themselves don't produce much useful measurements. Same is unfortunately true of just about all audio manufacturers these days.
But yes, have a slush fund that is big enough to purchase more expensive products on demand would be a good thing.
As much as I like the idea, the less money we give Paul the better. We shouldn't be encouraging him. I think we've had enough samples of the quality of his work over the years to know that he's not interested in putting out a good product. He's a narcissist who only wants to be told how great he is. I'm not a clinician but I have some narcissists in my family and I know the warning signs.
Any chance of a denafrips DAC review? Ares II, Pontus II, terminator - any of them please!!
One was offered a while back but there was no follow up. I will be on the look out for them. For now, they do seem to perform very well for an R2R DAC. A true exception.
I bought 1 album from Octave and that’s the one! My first rationale to pay this much was to encourage the artist and a promise (at the time) to also encourage startup studio focussing on good sound. I only downloaded the 24/96 version as the file sized were staggering. It sounded good but I was not blown away. I tossed it to not having the DSD version and I was assuming that all the DSD folks out there were probably getting more benefits than I did LOL.
Still felt good to encourage the artist but looking at this video now I feel a little bit deceived and understand better the gargantuan file size.
I hope this is because it was one of their first releases and that they evolve the recording in their new studio and cut down the unnecessary noise and focus on providing good sound rather than a light that comes up on our DAC indicating a high bit and sample rate.
One thing for sure is I won’t buy another one until I know for sure that I’m getting value for the money. In the meantime if I want to encourage the artists I’ll find another way.
Thanks for explaining your motivation to purchase. I agree it is good to support the artist. The problem with this label is that the primary engineer is wedded to DSD64 so all content is going to produced that way which is unfortunate. But they can up the recoding fidelity and that would be a good thing.
@@AudioScienceReview agreed, they seem married to DSD 64. Unlikely to see changes…
@@audiorick841 Paul has said in one of his videos that they will start using higher rates in their new studio
Schooling PS Audio, which may or may not perk them up re making underhanded insults and innuendo toward Amir.
I learn a lot via these analyses, they are excellent educational lectures not just reviews. Lots of gratitude from me as this contributes to my hifi hobby even without being in the market for more stuff. Understanding is enlightenment. Enlightenment is fulfillment.
Thanks for showing us the spectrum of the hi-res PCM download from PS Audio Amir. I couldn't believe they didn't filter out the noise. DSD64 files sould be larger than PCM 96kHz/24bit, I guess not when you're doing it wrong a la PSA.
I watched a video of Paul McGowan a couple of weeks ago on DSD and SACD. He was ranting about the superiority of DSD by simply mentioning a bunch of anecdotes but without providing a shred of objective technical evidence. There have been some studies by actual researchers like Lipshitz and Vanderkooy of the university of Waterloo in Canada questioning the suitability of DSD for high-end audio. In his video, he failed to mention that you can't do any processig to a DSD signal like mixing or even basic bass management; for that the DSD signal has to be converted to PCM. Mind you, I'm not against DSD, I own several SACDs. At the end of the video, Paul was gloating about his SOTA Octave studio they were building to produce DSD recordings.
Well said. I actually was at AES conference where Professors Lipshitz and Vanderkooy ripped the format to shreds. It was on a panel with Sony and Philips and they knew they were in trouble.
High-res formats tend to be self selecting to some extent, drawing better recording techniques and such. Sadly that was not the case here. And yes, Paul continues to express lay opinion about such technical matters without showing any evidence that he is right. His folksy presentation combined with gray hair in audio gives him credibility so people believe without asking for any kind of back up.
@@AudioScienceReview Hot damn! You were at the Lipshitz and Vanderkooy AES presentation in 2001; why you're all over the place Amir. 😀 I guess that was back when you working for Sony.
I an a studio recording engineer and have been watching his studio build videos with great interest. Paul's ego makes him do all of the videos trying to sound impressive when he has no idea what he's talking about. Each video is shockingly embarrassing to anyone who knows anything about studios, but I guess he releases them so his fanbois will tell him how great he is.
They released a video a few days ago about moving their Steinway baby grand into the studio, and the fools moving it weren't real piano movers and almost broke the Pedal Lyre off trying to stand the piano up.
In another video he tries to sound smart by explaining what the "phase" button does on a recording console. In reality it simply inverts pins 2 and 3 on the balanced signal so the audio essentially gets flipped 180 degrees out of phase. The button is largely useless with the exception of a few things it can be useful for, but Paul started flipping buttons on random tracks willy nilly, declaring that the mix "sounded better" with the phases flipped.
All I heard was comb filtering and I can assure you the tracks did NOT sound better. From the looks of his reaction in the video, he couldn't hear it, and based on this Octave release I would say that conclusion was correct. Only a person with tin ears and no science acumen would release this garbage.
Hilarious. Thanks for sharing those recounts. 😂 Yeah... that sounds like good ole Paul. All show but very little substance.
@@chriswhalley there is no way that's the answer. Why would he expect that they always would be listening with his gear? This is just a sign of his incompetence. The label is a joke.
There are many comments that since we can't hear 20khz and above even when young why care about it, this video explains that even though we can't hear those high frequencies studies (links in the show more section) do show that we do somehow perceive them . ua-cam.com/video/Btn572ZIC8k/v-deo.html
this is great educational info.. i been listening to my music via Audirvana upsampling everything to DSD64 thinking its better... but what do I really know... i think this is a great start to understanding higher bitrates... Can you do a video to explain to us the effects of upsampling files using Audirvana? ie. a 44.1 pcm file to DSD... good or bad? should i even be upsampling? I do hear a better improvement to dynamics, but how much upsampling is enough? thanks Amir!!
I plan to do some formal testing on upsampling, including DSD. Once there, I will do a video. Until then, I would play all content at its native rate and not upsample.
@@AudioScienceReview thank you Amir!
What an unbelievably insane audio format. You pay extra to force yourself to noise shape the audio....just so you can get what an ordinary PCM recording will give you. 👍
Hey man, great video! I like the presentation and the analysis, but I can’t help but feel there’s a bit of a double standard in examining the PS audio power conditioners in just the audible band, to then critique their recordings at ultrasonic. I have allot of curiosity in the ultrasonic realm, so I would encourage and request spectral inclusivity of ultrasonic performance at every opportunity.
I saw on one of Paul’s videos that they’re using stacks of PS audio Power-Plants (AC regenerators) in the studio of Octave Records, so I feel looking at the ultrasonic performance of their power conditioners adds to the story of what was found in their recordings, whatever that story may be. Maybe even a deeply ironic one.
It unfortunately is not easy to analyze the audio band as you have to separate the noise from music. That aside, the claim to fame of high-res audio is wider bandwidth than CD so it is fair game to look at ultrasonics.
I did not know about them using power plants in Octave studio. Good to know. THanks.
@@AudioScienceReview There's videos on the PS Audio channel that gives a glimpse of the equipment used in their studio. If you're familiar with their equipment, as you are, you'll see it in the background of the latest Octave Records/Studio video.
With all the info of showing different things between speakers and amps and trade offs, and thoughts on what happens to this or that at what point do we have to deal with the end result because it can’t be better? Example of this dsd music with the hump vs the 44hz that is flat, it comes down to trade offs then off taking a risk of making a tweeter isolate or a amp oscillate or a dac, great great tech info! Way above the average person looking for some better sounding tunes that may or may not be informed correctly.
Thanks been waiting for your analysis of DSD I have bought a few SACD's lately and ripped them to DSD files and use my RME DAC for playback, The DAC does include the brick filters to remove the noise. I was thinking is DSD better or did they use different mastering or EQ? Turns out not often they just up sample... However SACD does have multi channel playback I think really DSD was about DRM as SACD needs a special chip to play great but that limits DAC choices. This all makes me think how clever the designer's of CD were.
Multichannel is definitely an innovation there vs CD although today we have plenty of ways to get that now.
Best software i know. Met them at High End Munich. cant believe they stopped the Project. Maybe what we can see there is one of the reasons. ;-)
What is it?
@@thescotsmantechnologyrevie2138 MusicScope.
@@AudioScienceReview thank you, I’ve not seen this one before. I use iZotope RX currently for all my analysis
@@thescotsmantechnologyrevie2138 yeah, RX looks good. this is more a tool for work, not just analyzing.
The main issue is the microphone itself has certain frequency range. It is rare to find micrphones which capable to pick up frequency range more than 20kHz. BTW, 300 MB for single audio file is a waste
How about analyzing digitally generated audio test signal/tone in high res formats, andd data convertions. Example. DSD -> FLAC and PCM -> DSD.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for introduction to this topic. Look forward to watching & understanding more!
glad i found your channel. agree on everything including dave grusins elevator music. so many other audiophile musicians out there that at least give you some sizzle with their efforts.
I probably wouldn’t ever buy hires audio but have some and was really impressed with response of “Sound Liason” when they corrected their test files (Shame you didn’t update your video accordingly) I downloaded their updated files and look forward to checking them out. By the way “2L” is the name of the record label, sadly their free test files have been discontinued.
Good work Amir we love you thanks for sorting the wheat from the chaff.
My pleasure. THanks for watching.
What I understand is, that high frequency headroom gives you the abillity to record fast transients. The speed of attack and decay is something that distinguishes alot of recorded music from live performances. What Paul and others are trying to do is to explore this realms and make it open to personal experience. Maybe you should download a file with drums (highhat, tomtom). Whould be interesting to see the graph move on that sounds.
That would only be true if you want to record inaudible transients. Your ear is an automatic filter above 20 kHz (when young) so its slew rate is quite low. The marketing pitch from DSD folks want to make you think otherwise but it just doesn't work that way when are dealing with a human brain. There some wonderful recordings of drums in just 16/44.1.
@@AudioScienceReview , can you download a DSD file and look if there is movement in the upper scale? And I understand that we can not hear a tone in the upper frequency range, but we somehow, magically, hear the difference between a very steep transient and a not so steep transient. Lets call the aural impression "pain" 😄
This whole highend stuff makes it possible for us to do the self experiment. If it changes something on our perception. I understand theory and measurement 100%, but I for example are curious to test this stuff out. I am shure that there are good recordings in 44/16, but they are rare. PS Audio took a big investment to try something new. It is not only the DSD thing, it is a recording electronic with highend grade components. I find it extremely interesting if they can produce some great sounding material.
@@AudioScienceReview , what also makes sense to me with higher sampling frequencies, that you retain alot more of the original timing information. Somehow, the ear can resolve timing intervalls of 10-20ms. With our low sampling frequencies, we are 1000 times slower. Here you have a physiological argument, why high res makes sense.
I have been anxiously awaiting this analysis. Thank you so much for providing real science in an area where there is so much snake oil.
And I have no doubt that every "audiophile" who listens to them swears they sound better, and that they can hear all of the luscious high frequency content!
Not surprised by this at all.
@Lloyd Stout So are you claiming that the Sony decryption chip isn't giving you a one-to-one decrypt of the file that Sony initially encrypted to put on the Blu-ray?
And also your argument seems a little inconsistent here. You and everyone else all know that most adults can't hear over as you say, 18k, so then what's the point of high-res formats in the first place?
But I also don't buy the argument that people don't have good enough systems to reproduce this stuff to be able to hear it.
@Lloyd Stout
... the last time I could hear 18k?
Most likely it was 1979, as I sat in Market Square Arena, awaiting Molly Hatchet opening up for Kansas.
They didn't fly the PA, I remember a massive ground stack flanking the stage... then the individual next to me said "here"...
When? That's when.
btw; Molly Hatchet was so big at the time... that was one of 3 sold out 15k shows in a 4 month period, in the same venue...
plus they were hitting every city nearby as well.
They'd only released one album at that time... later that year, Flirtin' with Disaster was released ... they were on fire, at the peak of Disco.
They were big... besides, they had to gig that much to pay for all the coke.
Southern redneck cowboys in full length mink coats!
'79, I argue is the absolute pinnacle of pop/rock releases.
I have a Yamaha SACD player. I listen to classical only - labels typically are BIS, Harmonia Mundi, Accent - good stuff. On my player I can put on a CD and start it - and then toggle between SACD mode and PCM mode (all SACD CDs today are "hybrid"). This takes place more or less instantly - on-off, on-off. My speakers are decent - 8 year old B&W. You can definitely tell a difference - the SACD mode is richer, fuller. It can also play on another SACD system that I have with multi-channel which I like a lot. I have 1,000 CDs - maybe 2,000 so I don't stream. Most of my CDs are PCM and no complaints. But the 70 or so SACD discs that I have are lovely (the Harmonia Mundi St. Matthew Passion is a jaw dropper). I can't see the difference on a machine but I can hear it in my home. I wish SACD would have worked and am glad several classical labels are still producing it.
Most SACDs I've listened were clearly different masterings of the CD version. Some had at least 20db WORSE noise floors compared to the CD so you'd hear constant hissing on the background. Most likely the SACD mastered version was run through a compressor lol.
All of this info has been really making me reconsider my DSD library. I've converted all of it to CD quality and I can't tell the difference. I feel really stupid for spending money on my DSD files
I have no engineering background to comment on Amir’s findings, but one thing I have to say it. A lot of audiophile music (whatever that means) is boring as hell. I find watching paint dry more exciting.
Very true. Trying to get a proper artist to settle for selling music for a few nerds is hard!
This is so true! I always feel a lot of labels save money on buying good content and waste their money on "audiophile" technology. I'd rather listen to a CD of good music than an audiophile file of boring crap.
I feel the same when I go to the Montreal Audio Fest. Some songs are great and I used Shasam a lot to find the title and add it to my playlist, but soo much boring stuff also. Seems like there is no modern pop,rock,heavy metal, rap,etc.. with hifi sounds..but likely the studios nowdays are way better then before.
@@AudioScienceReview Hence, the loudness wars and autotune. It's a long, slippery slope into the garbage bin.
Curious to hear how the physical media's PCM layer will sound. Have a couple titles on the way.
Let us know.....
@@AudioScienceReview I reviewed the current Octave catalog on youtube to see if I liked the music. I picked Thom Lafond, Hothouse Flower and Otis Taylor. Hard pass on the Grusin album, not my cup of tea. The physical media comes with a PCM CD and a data disc for all the hi-res files. For these three tiles at least, the tracks sound like they were very well recorded and mixed - gorgeous even. Tracks are natural, clear and no dynamic compression that I can hear. I played the PCM CDs on a DSD enabled Luxman D-03X CD player/DAC connected to a Luxman L-550AX MKII integrated amp with various speakers I have in rotation. I A/B listened to tracks comparing PCM and DSD files and my middle aged ears cannot hear the difference. I fully acknowledge many are able to. Personally, this confirms that in terms of playback fidelity, the recording/mixing quality is paramount and the format/resolution doesn't matter at all. I am also biased, I just like playing CDs.
Any properly designed DSD software player will include FIR and/or IIR low pass filters to cut the ultrasonic noise, just as are found in hardware SACD players.
In order to do that it would have to convert to PCM first. A hardware player doesn't need to do that.
@@AudioScienceReview No does not. It be can filtered though the circuit itself. DSD can actually be played native via a sigma delta modulator then go through both a low and high pass circuit before it hits the output of any speaker or preamp. No digital filter is required really
DoP DSD DACs are oversampled pcm first then go through a sigma delta modulator. All Sabre chips do it this way.
Only the high end AKM and some Cirrus Logic can play DSD natively. I think burr brown as well (not sure though). Also those semiconductor Dac chip makers test and develop the digital filters to be used with their chip’s implementations.
So why didn’t they filter out the noise whilst in PCM format? There has to be a reason even if it was not wanting to add a step in the workflow. Someone ask PS Audio…
Excellent analysis. Additionally, I think there is an issue with the microphone they are using. With the exception of a few microphones, the frequency response of a typical professional microphone is capped at 20 KHz. Thus, I would think that the input is less than that, even if the digital container is large.
We are seeing all that noise in the upper end. Can you hear that noise? Does it affect the 20 to 20K range in any way?
Paul has explained that the Octave studio records in DSD, then converts to analogue for mixing, and then converts back to DSD to create the master. Out of band noise increases on each conversion.
Ouch. That is really bad then. It is unlikely that the dynamic range of his analog gear is as good as 16 bit CD so any hope of that being high res is lost as well. All the hoops he is jumping into without verification of need....
@@AudioScienceReview The minimum to record in multi-track would be two conversions, assuming that all EQ, compression, mixing and mastering processing can be done as a single operation, in real time. The producer has a challenge to compromise on the mixing/mastering process or incur additional conversions. Interestingly, the Studer mixer is based almost exclusively on NE5534 and NE5532 integrated op amps. Nothing wrong with that, but somewhat at odds with the "high end" playback equipment used by most Octave consumers.
Excellent and insightful in important ways, as usual. Thx.
I would urge you to look at the Octave files at the beginning and the end of the track when no music is playing and you can see the high noise floor of the actual recording chain. I have seen a noise floor with their microphones open in the room as high as -40db, and much of it at the low end of the frequency range. There is something going on in the room with ambient noise or the power supply chain of all of their gear.
Any decent recording studio should be able to achieve a -70 to -80 db recording noise floor...I do that in non SOTA recording studio in my home. A -40 to -50 db self noise floor in a recording system is not SOTA.
I do enjoy my SACD collection and own all of the early Octave releases. I will not buy anymore since I did my own tests many months ago. Luckily none of my amps have issues with ultrasonic noise hurting their performance. One can even use the free Tascam high res DSD playback software which has a metering display so one can see the level of the noise floor at the silent portions (beginning and ending) of the audio tracks.
My NCH WavPad software does have an FFT display I have found quite useful in my own recording work. It is a very affordable program. I wish the other program you mentioned was still available. I was able to down load the trial which only played files for a short time. Sad when great software is gone.
If you want to hear a great piano recording check out any of the Pete Malinverni recordings done by Jim Anderson. Only in the CD format but great playing and recording work.
MusicScope is available for free download from SourceForge. Search for "XiVero Audio Tools Files". I would provide a link but UA-cam seems to always delete links?
@@ctbarker321 It shows it as possibly unsafe and not suitable for 64 bit systems.
@@jtavegia5845 It is "abandonware" software. I am running it on Windows 11 as we speak. YMMV. There are threads on ASR and AudioXpress to learn more.
@@jtavegia5845 Thanks. Will do.
maybe you could use the soundtrack to clean engine parts?
That is so smart. :) There is enough ultrasonic energy to do some cleaning....
I don’t own any PS Audio but respect what they build and sell. This kind of feels personal, Amir. Your most recent videos all seem to be aimed at taking a little air out of PS Audio - whether with their power products and now with their new recordings group. I like your reviews but lately seems like you have a particular axe to grind. Spread the love, as they say.
Maybe you did see the respond Paul from PS Audio had to Amir? If you read it you might not be so surprised and what Amir present is simply facts. Do you like to be fooled?
Agreed, this feels like there's an agenda at play. Who cares what music Amir likes to listen to?
I appreciate the feedback. I honestly get asked to do this stuff. The P12 was send to me for testing. And request for this analysis was made by someone contacting me as I explained in the video. I downloaded the video, not knowing what to expect. But when I saw the noise encoded in PCM files, I thought that was wrong and I need to point that out. Hopefully some good comes out of it with the company changing its workflow and filtering the noise that is there for no good reason.
I hope you see that there is plenty of useful information in these videos and it is that which speaks. Not the few personal remarks I make here and there.
@@MaterLacrymarum What is the agenda exactly? On Music, I don't like this album at all. I was asked to evaluate their content, I downloaded and objectively analyzed it. I also commented in passing whether it was good music or not. I can't be a robot in these presentations. I share some personal opinion from time to time as well. I don't know how I could have made this video more factual and measured than it is.
@@AudioScienceReview This video follows another video on a PS Audio product, one that you found unsatisfactory (for justifiable reasons). In that video you give us the facts, along with some mocking. Again, given the context, fair enough. But you then chose to follow it up with this video, and that's what looks like an agenda. So, whilst both you and I would prefer a smaller file size, it does not in any way affect the quality of the recording or the music. Music which you chose, which you disliked. I really could not care less what you like musically speaking.
Basically, with this video it gives the impression you're going after one vendor, firstly for a hardware review, and then for some reason, a digital download. On the file size thing, I know plenty of audiophiles who want everything, and they'd likely appreciate getting the file warts and all - they tinker, they play, they do their own thing. I don't myself, but I know people that do. The last thing they worried about is file size. But my read here was that you simply wanted to spend some more time bashing PS Audio. I admit, I haven't seen other videos where you download digital music files and critique them - perhaps I missed them and it's a regular feature of the channel. As it is, given the tone of your last video, this simply felt like another put down to the choices PS Audio make.
Music isn't easily discussed technically, it's largely subjective. I'll await your next music review.
Amir - it's somewhat common the hear people express that it's not just the lower sampling rate but the filtering itself that makes PCM sound less than ideal, that the steep filtering somehow affects the lower or auditable frequency range and harmonics - - so I'm wondering if the ultra high frequency spectrum that's not filtered with DSD is the reason people claim it sounds better - - that is, is the high frequency byproduct less objectionable than the steep filtering associated with PCM? I know it's not practical but I'd love some listening tests - never figured I'd say this, but in this case some actual blind testing might prove interesting whether confirming, or not, or otherwise.
Clearly steep filtering can have issues so we don't need to go there as there is no obligation to stick with 44.1 khz sampling and brick wall filtering (it is a download so no need to stick to CD spec). Content can be release at higher sample rates, e.g. 88 kHz and a gentle roll off starting at say, 24 kHz in this case. Key is to analyze the content and see what is real and what is purely noise.
FYI there is one released paper that shows detection of brick walled filtering. And I have passed a few tests of the same. It is super challenging though so if there is an effect, it is exceedingly hard to hear. Still, per above, we don't need to resort to steep filters and low sample rates in digital downloads.
Can you advise on a software to analyze audio files like this? I am not sure you identified the program you are using in this video
This one is called MusicScope. Google for it as it is now put in public domain.
Maybe someone can explain this, but one thing I just never get is what's the point of hi-res in the first place? If we cannot hear beyond around 20k, then CD sample rate should just be enough to capture absolutely everything the human ear can hear. My understanding is that improperly done hi-res (as Amir as shown in a lot of videos) gets noise in the ultrasonic region that can be masked as audible region distortion when downsampled in playback. Even if the hi-res is properly done, why would the ultrasonic region matter even if the signal is correlated with the audible region? Isn't that just inaudible anyways?
It is a difficult case to make and hence the reason high-res has not captured much market share even though it has been around as a consumer format for some 30+ years. My take on it is that for digital distribution there is no reason to reduce resolution to 16 bits/44.1 kHz of CD spec. We are not dealing with CD anymore. This conversion can be done poorly and result in subtle degradation. A sensible format would be 24 bit/48 kHz but if needed, we could go to 88.2 kHz.
Another benefit is that if you do post processing in your gear with bass management, EQ, Digital Volume, etc., it is best to start with highest headroom format.
@@AudioScienceReview Thanks for the reply! So is the argument that downsampling can be done poorly so you might as well just release it in the format it was mastered? In that case, can one argue that a properly downsampled CD format is as good as the mastering quality? I guess for digital distribution you shouldn't downsample to CD spec if you are not releasing it as a CD, but for streaming, if properly downsampled 44k makes no difference than 192k, wouldn't that be significantly more efficient for both the streaming company and the consumer (network-wise)?
Also, if there is so much noise in the ultrasonic range, why don't DACs (at least I think they don't) low pass the audible range first before converting to analog?
Amir, something that I have observed and would be interested is your take on the what I have observed. I purchased a digital mixer for use at my church. Most good mixers have the ability to monitor the signal with a built in RTA. On this mixer you can have a 1/3 octave RTA on every channel or one up to 256 points of monitoring on two channels on the output. While recording a 441 signal of a our Praise band I noted that there was a fair amount of signal past 15Khz during the recording. On Playing back the recording there was no signal past 10Khz and considerably less above 7Khz compared to live performance. The same mixer was used for both the recording and the playback.
That is quite a puzzle. I can't think of how that happened unless there was some kind of low pass filtering going on.
You can losslessly compress DSD with wavpack fyi
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
The high end restaurant reference made me laugh. I’ve been there and it felt as if someone was intruding on my meal. I just wanted them to stop playing. Now I can end that torture simply by not buying those CD’s.
I’m so glad I’ve given the whole download music / stream thing a swerve
Not because of any great insights and revelations like this above
Just computer ignorant !
My phone is my only computer
CD has improved amazingly over the years - CDs I bought in the 80s have never sounded better and they are so cheap to buy second hand
4:17 for the curious, that's called dithering. Example image:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither#/media/File:Michelangelo's_David_-_Floyd-Steinberg.png
Huh, isn't the noise hump inaudible? Yes, filtering it out will reduce the size of file but amplifier roll off in this range don't they? Nice analysis but my downloads sounded pretty good.
Correct.
I am not so technical and neither do I hear this music but would like to know your review on Apple Music lossless /digital master vs Tidal HiFi for say Dire Straits I want know from your technical capability which service is better
I am not an Apple music customer unfortunately so can't do that. I do plan to do this type of analysis at some point though.
@@AudioScienceReview it’s free for 3 months please do try to make the video it will be super hit. Apple vs Spotify Vs Amazon HD Vs Tidal
Great video.. I dig your knowledge and vibe!
Grammy winning 2L Audiophile Reference Recordings are indeed the bee’s knees for high resolution audiophile music.
I don't like this label. Most of the records is live performance with a lot of mastering gimich (in recent Mahler's 8, for instance, the choral have a overgain and clipping right on begin). Europen small labels, witouth audiophile apell, usualy have better records.
Im literally amazed.
Why should they add a low pass filter in to digital recording path? Those filter is already in play back path. PS want to keep production as pure as thay can.
Great Amir, I have some XRCD , PCM , sounds great , can you test some XRCD .thanks
Sure. I have to go through my library to find them though. I think I only one a few...
can anyone in download upload a link of the program music scope? source forge no longer has it thanks
@@LeonardoBalboni none of those links work
do you have a direct copy?
@@Dr.reese_UBR3 try search the web with the software name (MusicScope-Setup-x64...)
I recommend submitting your findings to Paul and see if he will address them on the PS Audio UA-cam channel Paul Asks segment. Your likely to get a response. He may even agree with you and change it. But after watching Paul for a few years now I would suspect he left the files like that for a reason.
Paul has never responded properly to any analysis of their products I have performed. He simply dismisses them out of hand. But sure, let's hope he sees this analysis and has a proper response. And no, he didn't leave it for a reason. His producer, Gus, swears by DSD so he has jumped on the bandwagon. He has no technical reason to do that, nor has he read or understood any of the research and underlying signal processing. It is just not his area of expertise.
@@AudioScienceReview You have a good point, Paul definitely doesn’t cover criticisms of his products much, if ever. Probably not looking for them either. He has been pushing DSD for years though. You’d think he would have had enough incentive to learn more about it before making a recording studio based on it.
Finally, somebody testing what they try to sell you with only "nice slogans" and without any proof. Thank you for your work, you save me (us) from buying in to this bs. Now please test MoFi pseudo analog master recording vinyl.
Damn dude, you really need proof to listen to music???
If you don't want to buy music you can download it free lol
The producer plays on the customers notion that bigger file size means higher quality.... That is propably why there is all that junk in there...
Agreed. The question is whether at least once he has made the same analysis I have made or not....
Does similar high frequency noise exists when audio is upsampled from 44 to 48khz.Android software is doing it and most of them don't like it.Does the audio quality suffer or is there no difference between 44khz and upsampled 48khz.
Thanks for the video.
Noise shaping is a common form of signal processing and indeed, some PCM DACs use it. The difference is that they are not remotely so extreme as is the case with dsd.
This clearly shows a DAC with max 48 kHz sampling rate will do the job perfectly!
Αnother "product" brought to you by your uncomfortably friendly UA-cam uncle. Caressing you, tenderly, alarmingly close to your wallet.
My skin crawled by my own comment..
Spot on - a lot of the background noise could actually be Paul as he meanders around as bands try to lay tracks… there have been videos posted where you can see how pissed the band is that hes there… sorry to rip but this was just too spot on ive been seeing PS in my feed way too much recently
Amir's Super Hero name... "The Sonic Avenger"
I like the sound of that, pun intended. :)
To my ears DSD sounds better. Even redbook converted to DSD128. Noise outside the audible range, and large file size are unimportant to me.
Any such conversion needs to be level matched. It is easy to change the level when going from one domain to another causing discrimination as you state. I do plan to test the upsampling scenario you mention so stay tuned for that....
thanks, took out the mystery out of dsd.
Quality mastering sans excessive compression is all that matters to me. Give me dynamic range! i.e. dr10 and up. Im not hating on hi-res or dsd but I've experienced too much amazing sounding, 44.1 music to care about them.
I agree completely. Proper mastering can produce far better experience that you can hear, than any subtle or otherwise benefit of high resolution audio. One would think that better mastering comes with high prices and high res but sadly, that is not the case.
@@AudioScienceReview I remember back in the day 1993 the highest DR rated CD I had was Ry Cooder and V.M Bhatt's A Meeting By The River. Amazing sounding. Up and down the scale. That and Scot Walker's Tilt were the CDs I used to show people "dynamics' in audio. The loudness wars were a huge downer for me.
Take a look at D'Amore Engineering website and check out the specs on the 1500.2. amplifier. Its a dual mono block design and looks pretty sweet. Thanks again for the great vids!
D'Amore Engineering ... lol
Thanks for the video! 🥰
Amir, is it wise to enable a low pass filter at ~20 kHz in my DSP, that is in between my sources and power amplifiers??
(To be able to filter away this type of garbage and prevent the amplifiers to deal with it all together..)
20 khz is too close for comfort. I would set it to 24 kHz.
@@AudioScienceReview thanks Amir. You educated me that there is unnecessary and wasteful noise up there. That I in this setup are able to remove!
Then I will implement a 24 kHz and 48 dB octave low pass filter. ♥️🎵🎶🎼
I will call it a "Gus guard". 😉
Arrg the miniDSP 2x4HD could only do as max 20 kHz 🙁🎼
Haha, Paul really having a year.
9:50 You're showing raw WAV sources which are going to be of a fixed size determined by their parameters and duration (duration * bit depth * sample rate * channels) not information contents. The presence of high frequency noise information would only come into file size reduction when a lossless compression like FLAC is applied to the information. Were you were supplied FLAC and you "extracted" them to WAV off screen? It would seem DSD64 at least benefits to being limited to 44/48kHz PCM in conversion?
Although it is common and routine to provide such files with flac encoding, this was not the case here. dsf files were in that format and PCM was in .wav. The used zip compression to package them all but zip is not well suited for this purpose.
Start at the beginning, what equipments were used to capture the sound(music)? How many and where located? Audio is so full of bull!
The data in the video is from analysis of the file using a program called MusicScope. If you go to the ASR thread of the same name, you see me posting the output from two DACs (RME ADI-2 and Topping) plus an SACD player (Marantz). All showed very similar spectrum to what you see in the video.
The comparisons of inaudible noise are not persuasive. What do you measure as far as the *audible* music? That would be interesting to understand. Your observations as to the mic’ing and soundstage, etc, from and experienced listener, were interesting. Thank you as always for the amount of work you put into your videos.
What does it mean when you say "The comparisons of inaudible noise are not persuasive." ??
I've loved you reviews for years but this ones got me a little apprehensive. I'm definitely not an expert so please help me understand, isn't there more to music than it's spectrum ? I've blind tested higher sample rate tracks before and 19/20 times can tell the difference. I hear more 'depth' and definitely smoother 'edges' to voices and instruments. What going on then, is it just my DAC doing a better job or somthing else ?? I'd love to hear your thoughts : )
Sure. This analysis is not exhaustive. Its depth specifically is impossible to determine without statistical analysis (i.e. how much of the "24" bit is real). Also, some research shows that resampling audio can cause degradation in audio. I have passed double blind test of such as you say you have (although almost everyone else fails in such tests). For these reasons, I prefer to have high res releases become available. It is just that such high res content needs to have spectrum of music and nothing else. We don't need tons of noise shipped to people for content that was vey limited in spectrum anyway.
I call BS on anyone who claims to be able to hear it! 🙂 So many variables that need to be accounted for.
I got into an argument last month with someone who said he could hear metal grinding noises in the 44.1 down-converted from 96K.
Well I've done thousands of sample rate conversions and have never heard grinding noises, so either their conversion software sucked, or he was listening next to an autobody shop with the windows open.
@@Wizardofgosz wow that dose sound nuts. I always used to be in the camp of listen first explain later. But since the abundance of helpful people like Amir I've learned so much. Maybe it's the implementation of my DAC who knows. But I use roon and luckily I can switch local sample rates as I listen, and on good recordings there's definitely something going on . It's still a real eye opener !
@@AudioScienceReview Thanks so much for the insights : ) that dose make sense, I wish I had the knowledge to test my own library this was (but it's quite extensive). Your videos have helped me so much, and saved my so much £££ on power supplies haha !
I think some context is needed here. Is the high frequency noise content of the Octave records file you analyzed unique to PSAudio's efforts or is a common feature of some, most, or all DSD download files (and SACDs)? For example, is it present in some of Telarc's "pure DSD" (originally recorded in DSD) SACDs released in the early 2Ks? Their "1812" overture and "Symphony Fantastique" are good examples. Suggest you do some more homework and report back.
It is common to all DSD64/SACD encodings although there can be small variations depending on what ADC was used.
I bought a few of Octave Records' downloads and I find their recordings beautifully natural, artifacts-free (especially the piano) .
It's swill and unlistenable garbage, where did McClown find such horrible crap to sell at insane prices? It's a goof
Are loudness targets of -24 LUFS typical of these sorts of boutique labels? This basically negates the reduced noise floor in the audio band.
It varies. I too was surprised that the full dynamic range was not taken advantage of here.
Another great one. Thanks, Amir! PSA shouldn't have replied to objectivity with insult, especially not when they're so vulnerable on all fronts. I mean: What the heck? They didn't even clean up the DSD noise when converting to PCM? This is appalling. Plus I totally agree: That music is worth neither the money nor the insane amounts of hard drive space. It's muzak/elevator music at best.
After your testing, it seems you didn`t hear anything better about DSD. Yet, I am wondering why MoFi and Analog Productions often uses DSD copies of master tapes to produce many of their high-quality records and SACD discs? Something is just not making sense.
Hi Amir, what analyzer/analyzing software is that which you are using?
*(Also, if I am thinking of getting into analyzing music files, is there any reading materials that you would recommend for an absolute beginner?)
The second software used is Adobe Audition, for non DSD files, it’s great
Thanks Amir. You say the music is recorded inside the piano so the recording does not replicate the sound of the recording room - at leas that is the way I understood it. I guess if you listen to music like that with headphones then something is missing. But how about if you play it with speakers in your room. Doesn't then your room add all those extra effects to the music like decay, etc. as if the piano would be in your room? I am obviously no expert, this is just a question/possible explanation which came to my mind.
If they didn't hang any mics to pick up the room, then listening without headphones won't fix that. If it's not in the original recording it's not in the original recording.
As Richard mentions, the recording is done with mic hanging above the piano which is placed in the corner of a small room. There is no ambiance to capture there.
@@AudioScienceReview It was a small room with a lot of parallel surfaces which means a lot of room modes. It's certainly isn't the kind of room you would find in a professional recording studio where you would want to capture the ambience. I listened to a lot of the samples of that recording on the PS audio website and I find nothing special about it at all. To my ear it sounds very flat and not very dynamic. I have mild Synesthesia And I see colors when music plays. This recording sounds very grey to me which my brain generally associates with boring and lifeless recordings.
But as expected, everyone who bought the record says it's the best thing they've ever heard in their life.
Great video and nice headphones, my friend. :)
Stealth's looking good though :)
They should change a name to BS Audio. Would be more proper.
Interesting they converted it to 192kHz and 96kHz as DSD64 is divisible cleanly into multiples of 44.1.
Yeh, it is a common mistake. For some reason the industry encodes in 96 kHz instead of 88 on PCM front as well.
The noise in the DSD files is of course inherent in the format and your program will show it. However, playing it back in DSD hopefully there is a filter to keep it from reaching your amplifier and speakers. I use roon, which by default has a 30kHz filter in place for DSD files.
If Octave had released this as an 88.2/24 file they would have had less noise in the PCM file and it would have been a multiple of DSD64.
Amir vrs ps audio intensifies.
I have done some informal hearing tests and I cannot hear anything above 13k (I’m 59). Why would I care about any sound at 20k and above? What, in the signal path, is impacted by sound above 20k? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. The size of the download? I’m not on dial up so file size is not something I am concerned about.
Yeh, the extended frequency response is of little value. The bit depth can be show to matter slightly up to about 18 bits. So 24 bit 48 kHz would meet all of our needs.
@@AudioScienceReview what about 16/44.1 or 16/48 ? Isn’t it standard on many Dacs? The difference between 16 bit or 24 is only about the noise floor? Is 16 bit noise floor in audiable range?
This is all well and good but at the end of day you really need to get your hands on a pair of PS Audio’s FR30 Aspen speakers. Their very first foray into speaker building by lead engineer and designer Chris Brunhaver and being marketed as a Speaker that sounds as good or better than speakers costing 3x as much as their $30k price tags and that includes out of this world measurements.
The bit I have seen of Chris shows he is of a different breed, following proper science. So I have hope that FR30 does well and that they build lower end speakers I can get access to.
Wait, what? If they rolled off the noise in the PCM version the file would have been smaller?
No. Same file size, just no noise.
PCM files are distributed as flac. Noise lacks correlation so can't be compressed making the file size bigger.
@@AudioScienceReview oh, well that's different. I didn't realize they were distributed as FLAC.
@@AudioScienceReview An even better way to save space when distributing DSD files that were converted to high-res PCM would be to just truncate all the PCM files at 22K, and have everyone store the DSD noise profile on their local computer and just append the upper noise bands to the truncated 22k file, and you'd have exactly the same thing. :-)