😀
I don't want to be negotiator in this case, but I noticed your 100% hit rate in a previous test, you have rights to protest. 🙂
I want to raise an issue that Delta-Sigma users are able to detect sound changes, but it is in a different way than for R2R users. Ken is probably using DAC the same type, it is why his hint was to listen and observe fatigue. "The one that cause the lowest fatigue is the best". Your hint is written there:
This is more analytical approach and I remember that Delta-Sigma DACs were giving me even false harmonics with a complex sound like bunch of horns. It is also consistent with Ken's listening fatigue hint. I did suffer such fatigue when using Delta-Sigma DAC - no more.
On the other side R2R DAC do not cause my fatigue even with a digitally deteriorated sound. These horns as in your example sound very sharp but never trigger uncomfortable bite or being smoothed, simplified.
The hints for listening when using R2R DAC should be different, analytical in the sense of analysing natural decay of the sound. I described it in one of my previous post. A gong and piano are primary examples. Resampling deteriorate these natural characteristic, it is why R2R (especially NOS) users should base their decision based on a natural sound characteristic.
I must point out that switching to NOS sound is not immediate. Usually two/three weeks is a time to recognise NOS propeties of the sound. Our brain needs a time to adjust and remove unnatural templates before NOS sound can be fully appreciated.
Last edited:
I am not protesting, rather I'm confused. I heard clear differences as reinforced in three out of four selections. I failed the Alexander Gibson, Witches' brew piece, that even in knowing the "correct" selections doesn't now help, even though I still hear clear differences.
I have two NOS modified CD players, a Marantz CD-94 and Naim CD3. Both have certain inherent qualities that if further exploited in the analog domain seem would exceed that of the Delta-Sigma DAC. This isn't clear though.
It seems that the report might have just incorrectly identified #2 instead of #3.
I have two NOS modified CD players, a Marantz CD-94 and Naim CD3. Both have certain inherent qualities that if further exploited in the analog domain seem would exceed that of the Delta-Sigma DAC. This isn't clear though.
It seems that the report might have just incorrectly identified #2 instead of #3.
You are free to draw alternative conclusions, of course. I would like to point out that we have tried to come up with hypotheses that should result in a significant result if people could hear a difference, but would mix up the tracks with maximum and minimum echo, or could only tell the intermediate echo from the other two.
I don't understand what sigma-delta modulation has to do with it.
Er... never mind. My ears seem ok... its my brain that wasn't functioning. I was participant #2. Sorry Marcel
Gerrit
Gerrit
Gerrit, if you are participant #2, then your test experience is very interesting. I thought that the Saint-Saens track was the best sounding of the four, with the the possible exception of the Keith Jarrett files. It's hard to say why you had the most difficulty ranking the Witches Brew files. Myself, I sometimes feel that typical OS sharpens the attack of transients, giving the false impression of greater dynamics. It is, however, a bit of a puzzle.
Last edited:
The third report was from Hierfi and it read:
"Hi Marcel,
I am not running a NOS Dac, rather the a S.M.S.L. M100 with an AK4452. It isn't clear what filtering is set up in the AK4452 by the M100.
Alex Gibson 1c, 2a, 3b
Keith Jarrett 1b, 2a, 3c
John williams 1b, 2c, 3a
Scarlatti 1a, 2c, 3b"
I think that matches with participant #3 in table 1 of the report.
"Hi Marcel,
I am not running a NOS Dac, rather the a S.M.S.L. M100 with an AK4452. It isn't clear what filtering is set up in the AK4452 by the M100.
Alex Gibson 1c, 2a, 3b
Keith Jarrett 1b, 2a, 3c
John williams 1b, 2c, 3a
Scarlatti 1a, 2c, 3b"
I think that matches with participant #3 in table 1 of the report.
Marcel,
Chapeau for your extensive validation with such great accuracy.
It’s a pity that only one Nos Dac contributed.
Hans
Chapeau for your extensive validation with such great accuracy.
It’s a pity that only one Nos Dac contributed.
Hans
It's indeed a pity. There is one participant whose NOS DAC was broken down and another one who got stuck abroad where he only has an OS DAC at his disposal.
Pity. How many were R2R users? Even in OS mode R2R sounds not much different. Delta-Sigma sounds completely different.
Last edited:
No. The listing of my responses above is correct, though this is not participant #3 in table 1, rather it is participant #2. This was my mistake as well. The results identified respecting participant #2 in Table 2 is confusing.
Is there any value in upsample and downsample the audio file more than one time to see if an eventual error became easier to detect.
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent }
No value for R2R NOS users, just a slight sound degradation every time. I made number of test in the past and decided to play in a native format where possible.
A different situation is for DAC's with internal processing, especially Delta Sigma users, as upsampling to certain frequencies allow to bypass some internal (inferior) operations. It works on some DAC's, but not all.
A different situation is for DAC's with internal processing, especially Delta Sigma users, as upsampling to certain frequencies allow to bypass some internal (inferior) operations. It works on some DAC's, but not all.
Last edited:
Sayunky.
Your posting sounds like the oracle of Delphi to me, it can be interpreted in many ways with no evidence whatsoever to back up anything.
And what exactly is native format?
Be aware that many recordings nowadays are made at much higher frequencies, followed by downsampling or in other words by processing.
Hans
Your posting sounds like the oracle of Delphi to me, it can be interpreted in many ways with no evidence whatsoever to back up anything.
And what exactly is native format?
Be aware that many recordings nowadays are made at much higher frequencies, followed by downsampling or in other words by processing.
Hans
I had loaned the Audio GD R2R-11 from someone a few years ago, the owner and myself both felt this DAC had issues with distortion and resolving of low level information.
I don't think it the best reference for making absolute statements about the benefits of oversampling in R2R DACs.
The effects are probably DAC dependant to some degree so experience with at least a couple dacs would be needed before concluding anything I think.
But all of this has nothing to do what he actually asked.
I don't think it the best reference for making absolute statements about the benefits of oversampling in R2R DACs.
The effects are probably DAC dependant to some degree so experience with at least a couple dacs would be needed before concluding anything I think.
But all of this has nothing to do what he actually asked.
The last two posts sound like bullying tactics. A native format is what I do receive, it was not really a question, but a dumb statement of your own inteligence. And a statement about downsampling? What I should argue for? What I do receive is better made than I can do myself, it is one of my point. Upsampling do not increase information, it is a second point. It can create perception of increased details (purely for a dominant tones) and a perceived soundstage, but some microdetails, reverbations typical for NOS are lost during the process, not to mention bringing artefacts from intersample overloads. A depth of a soundstage is always decreased, a natural sound is deteriorated. And jitter is increasing proportionally, it can trigger discomfort on complex sounds.
A second method of bullying is to make derogatory comment on the equipment I use. You may continue...
A second method of bullying is to make derogatory comment on the equipment I use. You may continue...
Last edited:
For the kind of experiments Hans did, that could help to make imperfections more audible, assuming you don't get perfect reconstruction. If I understood it correctly, Hans already got significant results after one upsample-downsample cycle with Audacity, though.
For the echo experiment, I added the echoes artificially and could make them as large or as small as desired. With two passes of adding echoes you would get echoes of echoes, but those would be very small.
Thanks Marcel. In your more recent post of #1126 you revealed the dialog and file selections that I sent to you on July 23. This shows compliance with the correct responses in Table 1 by participant 2 in relation to correct responses identified in the top line of Table 1. This is notwithstanding that the red line around participant #3 shows incorrect responses to the top line. So it seems clear that I am participant #2.
The Keith Jarrett files were very good and the simplest to resolve from the perspective that OS/NOS was considered causing those differences. On the other hand the Saint-Saens tracks were also very good yet the differences couldn't be resolved in the guessing as being caused by OS/NOS or by other distortion related artifacts. In other words there was no means to discriminate without an accurate reference track, this in lieu of using ones memory of sounds. This is to suggest that our memories of live acoustic pianos, guitars, trumpets, voices, etc., influence our selections. So it seems that in resolving things like pianos, etc., there are strong memories of the relative interplay of fundamentals and harmonics to assist in the selection of files. This as opposed to numbers of individual sounds having no necessary connections of loudness as could be influencing the Saint-Saens piece.
The other factor seems could be that the relative amplitudes of instruments in the Saint-Saens piece is generally more the same, or growing together, that unlike being a dominant instrument like a piano/harpsichord doesn't have enough power in the ringing caused by OS or NOS to influence the character of other instruments/things in this piece. It is a mystery.
Gerrit
The other factor is that files called "original" were also resampled, probably not the best way. Keith Jarrett was good quality, but...