Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?

[Al M.]

Obviously, you haven't heard a 176.4/24 or 192/24 recording via your BADA.

No interest, for all the reasons stated.

Yes, I read your BorderPatrol external power supplies review, not suprising that better high voltage supplies improved your amps.

But you didn't answer my question about relative improvement. If the amp with the old power supplies didn't let through the extra resolution, what's the use of hi-rez?

After speaking to the dealer who got the first Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC, I'd spend your money there before dropping $11K (not counting PCs) on the Triton/Typhon combo.

Good to know, but I need a new power conditioner anyway someday, because it is just a matter of time that my 23-yr old Tice dies. A Triton only will do, but the combo will be better.

If you're happy listening to just Redbook without ever having tried HI-REZ great, it's just like Mike being happy with his system without ever having tried DSP/DRC

Except that with DSP I could play any music I want, and hi-rez has just a tiny audiophile catalog (and that will never change). Big difference.

 

[mauidan]

But you didn't answer my question about relative improvement. If the amp with the old power supplies didn't let through the extra resolution, what's the use of hi-rez?

You never tried hi-rez before you upgraded your power supplies, so that's a moot point.

If the new power supplies are giving extra resolution on Redbook they'll do the same on hi-rez.

 

[Al M.]

You never tried hi-rez before you upgraded your power supplies, so that's a moot point.

If the new power supplies are giving extra resolution on Redbook they'll do the same on hi-rez.

Sure, but that was not my point.

If some of the best systems reported here were the best with standard Redbook CD as the source, then it seems that the fundamental characteristics that make these systems the best are not limited by the CD format. Greater resolution and more realistic presentation can always be obtained by improvements in things other than the playback format itself, even though within a given system hi-rez always may sound better. At the same time, Steve posed the challenge to distinguish in Marty's system, one of the best he's heard, between Redbook and hi-rez on a blind basis, something he thought was probably hard to do.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

I've had expert ears on my system who said wow, amazing sound for DSD. It was redbook.

 

[Joe Whip]

I would not be surprised that at times it would be hard to distinguish redbook CD from high rez. I have some incredible sounding CDs. For me it is more about the mastering process than the format. Well recorded music mastered with great care sound great regardless of format.

 

[GaryProtein]

I would not be surprised that at times it would be hard to distinguish redbook CD from high rez. I have some incredible sounding CDs. For me it is more about the mastering process than the format. Well recorded music mastered with great care sound great regardless of format.

Bingo!

 

[mauidan]

Sure, but that was not my point.

If some of the best systems reported here were the best with standard Redbook CD as the source, then it seems that the fundamental characteristics that make these systems the best are not limited by the CD format. Greater resolution and more realistic presentation can always be obtained by improvements in things other than the playback format itself, even though within a given system hi-rez always may sound better. At the same time, Steve posed the challenge to distinguish in Marty's system, one of the best he's heard, between Redbook and hi-rez on a blind basis, something he thought was probably hard to do.

I'm sure Marty's system sounds excellent.

Marty's sources are connect to his preamp and its analog output goes through a A/D and converted to the DSP processor's 96Khz rate.

IF he did send a PCM signal to the TacT, it goes through a asynchronous sample rate converter and upsampled or downsampled to 96Khz, so yes, it would hard to tell Redbook from hi-rez. I know, I owned the same TacT RCS as Marty.

If hi-rez formats don't make a difference, I guess Bruce is wasting his time remastering all those Wilson Audio recordings.

 

[microstrip]

I would not be surprised that at times it would be hard to distinguish redbook CD from high rez. I have some incredible sounding CDs. For me it is more about the mastering process than the format. Well recorded music mastered with great care sound great regardless of format.

I would love to agree with you - currently I do not care about high rez and my digital is all redbook CD. However this argument as presented is a fallacy - although Well recorded music mastered with great care sound great regardless of format what is questionable is if Well recorded music mastered with great care sounds better in a hi-rez format than in red book CD. We should not confuse our desires or dreams with reality. This is WBF!

 

[microstrip]

Sure, but that was not my point.

If some of the best systems reported here were the best with standard Redbook CD as the source, then it seems that the fundamental characteristics that make these systems the best are not limited by the CD format. Greater resolution and more realistic presentation can always be obtained by improvements in things other than the playback format itself, even though within a given system hi-rez always may sound better. At the same time, Steve posed the challenge to distinguish in Marty's system, one of the best he's heard, between Redbook and hi-rez on a blind basis, something he thought was probably hard to do.

Al M,

If systematically we find that Hi Rez in these great systems, using a player that is optimized for this system - yes these systems sounded great when using such CD player - sound better than CD than we can believe that hi rez is better than CD. Some of our members say so, although it is only their opinion, that I have good reasons to believe, but it is my private, single and humble opinion.

BTW, I can not understand how someone can argue on basis of an hypothetical imaginary challenge.

 

[Al M.]

If hi-rez formats don't make a difference, I guess Bruce is wasting his time remastering all those Wilson Audio recordings.

Al M,

If systematically we find that Hi Rez in these great systems, using a player that is optimized for this system - yes these systems sounded great when using such CD player - sound better than CD than we can believe that hi rez is better than CD.

Again, nowhere did I say that hi-rez makes no difference. Yet in the larger picture of attaining excellent performance through a system the precise format may not even be so relevant, as has been repeatedly implied on this thread by people familiar with hi-rez, including in Peter Breuninger's recent post on this page.

And on a musical level hi-rez is utterly irrelevant for me. About 98 % of the music, or the specific interpretations of music, that I listen to, is/are not available in hi-rez. So what's the practical point of hi-rez from my own personal perspective as a music lover? There is none. I'd rather spend my money on upgrades that elevate the CD-based performance of my system, where the music matters.

 

[BlueFox]

I'd rather spend my money on upgrades that elevate the CD-based performance of my system, where the music matters.

The benefit here is the same upgrades will also elevate the peformance of the high-res files. I refer to power, cables, vibration control, and the rack as the foundation of the stereo. Get the foundation right and everything else you add/upgrade will perform at its peak right from the start.

 

[Al M.]

The benefit here is the same upgrades will also elevate the peformance of the high-res files. I refer to power, cables, vibration control, and the rack as the foundation of the stereo. Get the foundation right and everything else you add/upgrade will perform at its peak right from the start.

No doubt that is true. I would add acoustic room treatment as essential foundation, in fact as the first priority far above anything else (and no, while DSP may be beneficial, it can't substitute for that either). I need to get serious about a better rack for vibration control; next on my list of upgrades following the Shunyata and before the Berkeley Reference DAC.

 

[prerich]

I'm a musical-techno-nerd so my opinion doesn't count.

 

[marty]

I use a DEQX and integrate subs.....Michael.

Michael, I'm a bit confused. Do I understand correctly that you use a DEQX? (HDP-4?). But do I also understand you use DIRAC live? My question then is why use both? I understand the need for the DEQX for its crossover function, but why not use the DEQX for the DRC benefit as well? Does DIRAC do a better job with that function than DEQX?
Marty

 

[dallasjustice]

Michael, I'm a bit confused. Do I understand correctly that you use a DEQX? (HDP-4?). But do I also understand you use DIRAC live? My question then is why use both? I understand the need for the DEQX for its crossover function, but why not use the DEQX for the DRC benefit as well? Does DIRAC do a better job with that function than DEQX?
Marty

Marty,
By DRC I assume you mean the PEQ inside the DEQX. In that case, I wouldn't even consider using it. If I were to use an old school PEQ, I would probably use Jriver's PEQ, which I've done in the past. I started off down this path with PEQ hand built partly from REW with help from Nyal. I wouldn't just plug in the filters REW spits out because REW can't differentiate minimum phase correction from non-minimum phase. That's why Nyal was so helpful. After that, I tried several different target based solutions and settled on DIRAC LIVE.

Yes, DIRAC is MUCH better than even the custom filters I built using Nyal and REW. DIRAC is very advanced and indispensable.

The only DSP used in the DEQX is smal speaker correction down to 1khz and crossover/delay for subs.

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Marty,
By DRC I assume you mean the PEQ inside the DEQX. In that case, I wouldn't even consider using it. If I were to use an old school PEQ, I would probably use Jriver's PEQ, which I've done in the past. I started off down this path with PEQ hand built partly from REW with help from Nyal. I wouldn't just plug in the filters REW spits out because REW can't differentiate minimum phase correction from non-minimum phase. That's why Nyal was so helpful. After that, I tried several different target based solutions and settled on DIRAC LIVE.

Yes, DIRAC is MUCH better than even the custom filters I built using Nyal and REW. DIRAC is very advanced and indispensable.

The only DSP used in the DEQX is smal speaker correction down to 1khz and crossover/delay for subs.

The DEQX is a multi-function piece: dsp crossover, speaker correction and room correction processor. Also with pre-amp functionality (input switching, volume control).

The room correction in the DEQX is 'old school' parametric EQ. There are 10 EQ filters available. Designed to be used in the bass. You can still get exceptional results with this approach.

Dirac and Trinnov are the only two 'full range' room correction algorithms that I would use. Dirac cannot do subwoofer integration. They are complementary. Dirac for room correction, DEQX for speaker correction, active crossovers and preamp functionality. Trinnov and DEQX overlap, both have their pros and cons.

 

[Windows X]

Journey to the unknown world is rather eccentric trip. Everyone loves to brag how their systems sound and some was over-confident enough to say it's even better than expensive disc players/transport.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Journey to the unknown world is rather eccentric trip. Everyone loves to brag how their systems sound and some was over-confident enough to say it's even better than expensive disc players/transport.

It takes no confidence at all to know that sometimes files ripped to my hard drive are better than they are on the discs they came from, because sometimes, that process corrects obvious errors that no transport can remove from the optical disc. The subtleties of high-end fidelity? If you believe that spinning a plastic disc in a big expensive box brings you closer to the music than sending exactly the same data, to exactly the same converter, from a hard drive, enjoy.

Tim

 

[Windows X]

Hmmm. I don't hear it like that coming my slotin dvd drive in $500 laptop or dedicated desktop using Plextor Premium 2. Just making reproduction close to Premium2 playback is hard enough, let alone comparing it Esoteric transports. If you study data communications, you'll know that good optical media has shorter access time, no power surge, less jitter and way lower noise comparing to magnetic/nandflash/ssd. And if you can go such length, there's UD disc for very low error QC ones and glass cd that's not plastic.

Though I've said all that, I still have bragging confident to say that I made very good ones to use that I could live with in place of Esoteric P-02/D-02 combo. Couldn't come close to that level yet but not too bad like you can't keep listening comparing to that duo. Maybe pretty close if compare to P-05 ones or other brands using Esoteric VRDS-NEO VMK-5 models.

Windows X

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hmmm. I don't hear it like that coming my slotin dvd drive in $500 laptop or dedicated desktop using Plextor Premium 2. Just making reproduction close to Premium2 playback is hard enough, let alone comparing it Esoteric transports. If you study data communications, you'll know that good optical media has shorter access time, no power surge, less jitter and way lower noise comparing to magnetic/nandflash/ssd. And if you can go such length, there's UD disc for very low error QC ones and glass cd that's not plastic.

Windows X

I don't think a study of digital media is going to reveal that optical transports all have lower jitter and noise levels, much less that they have faster access times than flash. And the slot-fed optical drive in your laptop is completely irrelevant if you rip properly. You're not playing CDs from that drive are you?

Tim