Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[Miska]

You are fully encouraged to talk about audibility as long as it is in the context of controlled test. Not random subjective remarks. I just post my double blind listening tests. Do you have anything like that for your claims?

I agreed not to talk anything about the topic anymore. And in any case, as usual, what ever results I would get you would tell me that I have something wrong with the test. So I'm not going to waste my time discussing this topic here anymore. I stick to objective data.

 

[Miska]

Not quite right there...

I asked that if you aren't going to provide support for your repeated audibility claims, to stop making them.

You were never told you couldn't post in review threads. Might want to review that PM exchange again.

You got started with:

You are expected to stay out of review threads with your version of what matters.

 

[BDWoody]

You got started with:

And included:

"Comments in review threads should either be complementary or kept to yourself."

Did you miss that part?

Edit: those who stand to benefit financially from the membership have a different set of standards to meet. One is not trashing other products in general, and specifically not in review threads.

 

[JSmith]

So I'm not going to waste my time discussing this topic here anymore.

No one said you can't start a new thread on the broader topic... just not to derail specific review threads is all.


JSmith

 

[kongwee]

You can't do DRC on DSD.

I dunno what impression give you it cannot be done. It is just algorithm same like PCM. Just that these is never DSD console or DSD DAW to work with. For audiophile world, they won't use DRC at all.

 

[Miska]

You seem to be forgetting the large and unnecessary file sizes created due to all the noise... why capture this? Also, why do most SACD players have a 50kHz brick wall filter selector if the unnecessary ultrasonic noise isn't a physical liability to amplifiers and speakers when pushing more than 100W of power from the amp?

Size of DSD64 file is same as 88.2/32 PCM file. It is not particularly large, and I haven't seen any particular issues with the file sizes, especially taking the benefits into account.

They don't have brickwall filters. The point is to not have such. Orignal specs fine a filter enough to just tame the noise enough for it to not cause problems.

But many DACs currently on market put out more ultrasonic stuff with PCM inputs than the noise from spec compliant SACD player. And these are 100% correlated with your source signal, unlike the DSD noise.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Many DACs spit out fully correlated imaging distortion at much higher levels.

Can we zoom in on the first 500kHz perhaps? I think this is where most of the interesting stuff happens.

 

[Miska]

And included:

"Comments in review threads should either be complementary or kept to yourself."


Did you miss that part?

I don'g recall posting anything else in review threads. But you started the PM thread right after I posted my measurement results for the devices in question to the relevant review threads.

So I will post my measurement results elsewhere, mostly on other forums then.

 

[BDWoody]

I don'g recall posting anything else in review threads. But you started the PM thread right after I posted my measurement results for the devices in question to the relevant review threads.

Your claim was that you were told you couldn't post in review threads.

You weren't.

 

[Miska]

Can we zoom in on the first 500kHz perhaps? I think this is where most of the interesting stuff happens.

You are free to zoom to what ever you feel interesting when you are doing your own measurements.

 

[Miska]

Your claim was that you were told you couldn't post in review threads.

You weren't.

You later added that sentence which is not clear to me given the context. I don't understand what I'm allowed to post there then, so I rather not post anything then. Just saves me time, effort and from the related grief.

So I won't discuss audibility, nor post my results or such to review threads.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I agreed not to talk anything about the topic anymore. And in any case, as usual, what ever results I would get you would tell me that I have something wrong with the test. So I'm not going to waste my time discussing this topic here anymore. I stick to objective data.

Mostly in the megahertz range.................

 

[amirm]

I don'g recall posting anything else in review threads. But you started the PM thread right after I posted my measurement results for the devices in question to the relevant review threads.

So I will post my measurement results elsewhere, mostly on other forums then.

Man, it is impossible to get you to focus on answering simple questions. Anyway, by all means run if you don't know how to demonstrate reliability of your claim that anything below 700 KHz is a hazard to your ears.

 

[kongwee]

I don't wish Miska to be lock out as he can keep producing graphs and explanation, especially on converters. I don't think mod or admin of the site are the knowledgable on this subject. Best to get from user who are experts on this subject too.

 

[amirm]

I don't wish Miska to be lock out as he can keep producing graphs and explanation, especially on converters. I don't think mod or admin of the site are the knowledgable on this subject. Best to get from user who are experts on this subject too.

He can post what he wants in proper threads. Here, we are on a specific topic of content produced by Octave and getting him to provide any answers is more difficult than catching a fish with bare hands. All I see is misdirection and attempt that confusion with graphs that have no relevance.

But go ahead and in your own words show the graphs and tell us what is important about them in this context.

 

[MAB]

You are fully encouraged to talk about audibility as long as it is in the context of controlled test. Not random subjective remarks. I just post my double blind listening tests. Do you have anything like that for your claims?

At the risk deepening this argument...
I was looking at Steely Dan, West of Hollywood, Two Against Nature that I got from a high definition music site.... It has the same issue as this recording, but it also was mastered too loud.
Most of the song shows that I just paid for noise, and the noise extends to 44kHz for most of the track. As you can see from this screen capture, the noise goes to zero at 44kHz.:

But, since they had the volume at 11 when they produced this, I see that every time the recording clips, I get a big burst of harmonics above 44kHz:

If I'm following the bouncing ball correctly here, this is an example where another source of noise is being injected into the encoded file. In this case, it is the harmonics of the clipping. So this is noise from another issue in the mastering process I think I paid for. And that is definitely not some nuanced element of the recording that was missing in the original. The original is clipped too.

 

[kongwee]

He can post what he wants in proper threads. Here, we are on a specific topic of content produced by Octave and getting him to provide any answers is more difficult than catching a fish with bare hands. All I see is misdirection and attempt that confusion with graphs that have no relevance.

But go ahead and in your own words show the graphs and tell us what is important about them in this context.

He answered all my question, I am fine with the thread. Example higher sampling rate in converter(DSD or PCM,same) will lower audible frequency noise. That already appear in his graph. You can debunk me that you can't hear the noise, it is truth too. It will not stop me set my audio interface to highest sampling rate that my computer can managed.

 

[Dogcoop]

That’s for another thread. I was merely disputing the notion of “tons of power wasted” and “extra noise”. That notion is nonsensewith upsampling. I, for one, would like to know what I’m missing. Thanks

I agreed not to talk anything about the topic anymore. And in any case, as usual, what ever results I would get you would tell me that I have something wrong with the test. So I'm not going to waste my time discussing this topic here anymore. I stick to objective data.

The results of a double blind listening test are objective. So, where did you say your test results were?

 

[Miska]

He can post what he wants in proper threads. Here, we are on a specific topic of content produced by Octave and getting him to provide any answers is more difficult than catching a fish with bare hands. All I see is misdirection and attempt that confusion with graphs that have no relevance.

OK, so your graphs are somehow relevant but mine are not?

Seems futile attempt to discuss conversion technology if there's no attempt to understand how things technically work inside. And why and what you see in those graphs.

 

[theREALdotnet]

The results of a double blind listening test are objective. So, where did you say your test results were?

You misquoted me, can you please fix that?