Let the Games Begin

Some of these replies are technically over my head, so I will give a simpleton's explanation of what I am hearing in my latest system which I have been running for about 6 months now.

System:

Jay's Audio CDT3 Mk3 CD Transport

Holo Audio May Level 3 Kitsune tuned DAC

Primaluna Evo 400 Preamp

Primaluna Evo 400 Power Amp

Klipsch Cornwall 4 Speakers

Rel S812 Woofers (2)

Most reviewers agree that the Holo May sounds best in NOS mode (though it will upsample quite high if desired,) so I leave the dac on the NOS only setting. However the Jay's Audio transport has a toggle switch that allows for 4x upsampling (176.4) processed by the Transport, and I am finding that to be an intriguing setting with certain music and maybe with all music. The Holo May immediately locks on to the 176.4 sample being performed by the CD transport but is itself not doing any upsampling.

My system became more accurate and discriminating after I attached some home made signal "grounding boxes" to the CD Transport, DAC and REL's and built a heavier and more rigid component rack. All of these tweaks have brought the system to a higher level at which point I could switch back and forth between Redbook and 176.4 and hear more of a difference between the two. However, the 176.4 definitely sounded smoother with slightly better instrument separation though accuracy of timber and tone may be somewhat distorted. The mids - especially vocals - are more holographic and affecting at 176.4.

I.E., I am apparently wishing for a blend or marriage of these two modes, but wondering if it is possible and how I might go about it.

There are a few key things left out of this analysis. But I should preface this "critique" by stating I'm a fan of digital music and no longer own a turntable or other purely analog source.

This analysis assumes that the analog source signal has no content above 20Khz. In reality, the signal will have many harmonics well above 20Khz, which have to be filtered out to prevent aliasing artifacts. This is not easy to do. Higher sample rates make it easier, but still not trivial. 

A practical high-order low-pass filter will still introduce phase shifts and frequency response aberrations, and require a fair amount of circuitry (usually done with op-amps) which introduce their own distortions. 

Once the signal is digitized at a high sampling rate, it's fairly straightforward to digitally filter the data and down-sample back to Redbook, but this will no longer be an "exact" copy of the original input signal. 

16 bit samples are probably adequate to handle the dynamic range of the source content (particularly with all the compression that is often used), but this assumes that the full 16 bit dynamic range is utilized. In many cases the input signal is captured at well under it's maximum signal level since it is virtually impossible for the recording engineer to anticipate the maximum signal level that the musician will create. 

I've talked to a number of recording engineers who say they try to set the levels based on a sound check, and then the musicians play much louder during the recording session resulting in clipping. And, of course, musicians do not like it when the recording engineer tells them they have to do it again because of a mistake they blame on the engineer. As a result, most content is captured significantly below the maximum digital signal level. 

If the content is captured with 24 bit samples to start with (best case is probably closer to 20 bits of real signal-to-noise), then the recording and mastering engineers have more room to adjust levels and achieve closer to the Redbook dynamic range potential. 

If everything in this process is done optimally, I think it's possible to convert to Redbook and achieve stellar results. With well-recorded and mastered content, Redbook audio can sound fabulous. 

Since everything is rarely done optimally, having a little headroom in both sample rate and bit depth can be helpful. 

Converting the digital back to analog can also create artifacts. If the output is not bandwidth limited, the conversion process will include high-frequency "mirrors" of the original signal. Many listeners find these artifacts fatiguing. 

Most DAC manufacturers have resorted to oversampling the digital data and implementing these filters mostly in the digital domain. 

So we end up sampling the input waveform at several multiples of the Redbook frequency, then downsampling to 44.1Khz to store the data. Then on playback, we end up upsampling the data back to a multiple of redbook so we can implement the reconstruction filter largely in the digital domain. 

It seems logical that avoiding the down-sampling and up-sampling steps would result in a purer reconstruction of the original content. 

Hearing is so weird. When I was working in the studios, I had the chance to work with one of the first Sony digital multitrack machines. I think it was 1” tape. We were all amazed that the playback off the tape was identical to the recording sound and we all pronounced it to be “better “. Later down the road many of us decided we liked the sound of analog multitrack with its added noise and compression. Go figure .

I connected an older jukebox style Sony CDP-CX200 to my higher end stereo. I ran an optical cable through a two way optical switch to a Schiit Bifrost Uber (about 7 years old now) into my Musical Fidelity integrated amp. Surprisingly, it sounded very good?????

I compared it to my Jay’s Audio transport going into a Denafrips Pontus 12 anniversary DAC.

A very interesting video, it's educational for sure.....

Zzzz

Very interesting video!

Everything made a difference... Even cables...

But there is an order of magnitude in the priorities and S.Q. / cost ratio ...

But also each component  good or bad working cannot be replaced or compensated  by some improvement anywhere else either...

Then everything indeed make a difference...

We must adress our priorites by cost but also by importance...

Cable make a difference but nothing to be compared with acoustic disposition...

If cables made no difference, I would be a richer man. I'll bet that a lot of other members would say the same.

A guy on facebook told me yesterday "It has been scientifically proven that cables make no difference."  I told him that we will never agree, wished him a good life, and so far haven't had to block him.

Jerry

Ok - I’ll bite (lightly).  I have a pretty resolving system.  I have never subscribed to the idea that hi-res is superior from a data standpoint. Standard CD resolution can sound very, very good.  In fact, I gave all my SACDs away because I no longer have a player - and some of them didn’t sound very good.  However, I do periodically stream hi-res files - because they’re available. And yet, I find this video misleading - or at least incomplete if the argument is there’s no advantage to higher resolutions or sampling rates.

I have an Auralic Sirius processor in my digital stack which I set to convert all files to DSD 512.  I can upconvert to PCM too but DSD sounds slightly better as it’s optimized for the DAC I have. The benefits of the Sirius processor were immediate and noticeable to any who listened A/B. 

Why? Not considering that high res files may be in a different software file format (and they do sound different) higher sample rates allow the reconstruction filter to have a much gentler slope which should (so I’m told) create less interference (for lack of the proper technical term) across the wide bands presented by complex music (as opposed to a single frequency as measured in the video).

In any case, I have no idea of any of the hi-res files I listen to are superior to their standard res counterparts on input. But, the benefits of higher sample rates in reconstruction seem fairly obvious on my system.

YMMV.

I asked ChatGPT to compose a response to Debunking the Digital Audio Myth. I asked that it be written in the style of John Milton's Paradise Lost. Lo and behold ChatGPT did this instantly! My college English Lit professor would have been impressed! I have it on screen shots in my android phone's Gallery. How can I post it here? A little help please!

The lower noise floor of 24/192 relative to 16/44.1 was a surprise to me. Though it is relatively minute, it is probably audible to golden ears on revealing systems.

Mr Fremer probably called them know-nothings.

I don't think it would convince someone with a $60K TT & 5000 LPs.

Let's hear from ChatGPT's take on this weighty topic with a reply written in the style of Milton's Paradise Lost!

Interesting that the "I know what I hear" crowd is apparently not replying. Then again, Fremer once referred to objectivists as "science based no-nothings" so I guess it's not surprising that when actual science proves something that audiophiles believe is wrong, they don't want to try and refute it. Great video and thanks for posting it.

@bolong That was fascinating to me, thanks! All these years I have had that stairstep picture in my head and sometimes thought about it while listening, and wondered what my music would sound like if the wave was smooth and continuous. This is really enlightening to me.

This is nothing new. There were studies years ago showing no difference in audio quality between CD and hi rez. Like many other parts of audio, some agree and some do not. Personally, I had a few good SACD players and never found the sound superior to redbook, but that’s just my experience. I don’t think the CD v DSD battle ever rose to the level of the CD v Vinyl arguments, which still rage on.