Commodore Remix

If you believe Peter Schelke in his observations and his technical explanation, and if you believe the manufacturers and media companies and institutions that use it, then yes, it will benefit quality. It will do so on multiple levels: it will make it possible to mix/master a production in DXD and convert to DSD for SACD publication, with superior quality compared to lower definition mixing. Second, pure DXD playback is also supposed to be audible, but at the absolute limit of audible improvements.

If you are producing music purely digitally without any analog source recordings or samples in DXD, it can still be be interesting to you if the synthesizer is capable of outputting to that format.

The problem is probably that it is a new format and not widespread yet.

I think it can be somewhat compared to digital images (scanned or synthesized) if the DPI is sufficiently high, you don't need anti-aliasing anymore. Of course that's just a superficial analogy.

MP3 is fine in high bitrates. To really appreciate DXD I'm sure you'll need a superior reproduction system, but even if you don't quite have that, I think you might hear the difference. It's on my to-do list at least.

DXD is future proof. It may be over the top for most people today, but what about in 5-10 years? Maybe you'll be glad you then have superb quality masterings lying around that you can actually appreciate with the equipment you have. The end-user may also be getting more quality. Intel High Definition Audio specifies > 200 kHz, and Microsoft is beginning to certify hardware with advanced equipment to make sure it meets certain fidelity standards, so even motherboards are getting better sound, by default.

XO: I can see it's place in development... and I think they should continue to further enhance audio playback ALWAYS! ... the problem is just RIGHT NOW... right now it's not of much use to musicians and consumers, and in the end, it's the consumers that are the ultimate reason music is being made at all... as long as the consumer cannot have this technology at home, with proper gear, and they also WANT it (meaning that they will shun compressed formats that would eventually pop up because of storage capacity and internet bandwidth), then it's not feasible for me at least.... when the later is made possible, THEN I'm on the wagon!

As I added to my last post (oh how I dispise the "edited" tagging of posts...)

The end-user will be getting more fidelity by default with Intel High Definition Audio, the replacement for Intel AC'97, which is and will be available to a lot of consumers. But read my last post again.

Audio Fidelity Testing: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/whql/audiofidelity.mspx

XO: well... as long as the end user has the possibility to utilize the enhancements, then I can only give you a thumbs up!

... until then, I'm happy with 44.1KHz 16 bit CD quality... as with everything; if you do not know what you're missing, you don't really care ... and this is even more true with the end consumer... even my own mother cannot comprehend when I tell her, that Shania Twain sound better on a pair of HIFI speakers to a pair of lowcost ones... "It's still Shania! can't you hear!?"... she says ....

... and should we not be happy that the "normal" people think this way?... I think that musicians are much more critical of quality than non-musicians in general.

xo wrote: Yes, it is a good idea to optimize many other things - earwax removal, room acoustics, etc. But that does not remove the need for the DXD format..

It absolutely does if these premises (I took only two as an example) are neglected - and practically they are neglected.
If you can improve the sound by let's say 10% by cleaning your ears, what sense does a format make that theoretically can improve by max. 1 %? It's like using a Hi End CD player with some multimedia speakers - senseless!

There is truth in what he says. Digital does not quite sound analog. There is no irony: you don't get analog sound just by trying out random things and listening, you actually think about it and design better solutions, such as DXD.

But it's still digital! I really don't get it: Do the 384 kHz compared to 192 kHz do the difference to you? Any digital signal is "only" a rendition of an analog signal. I severely doubt I'd hear a difference between DXD or any HD-Audio format - maybe you do but I'd be curious if still so in a double blind testing situation. (Ever talked about the influence of psyche and mind on the hearing, especially in test situations? )

As to making money off the other optimizations, well they already are! Room acoustic panels, diffusors and absorbers sell, just not in high numbers to the end consumer.

Neglectable. There is simply no consumer market for it.

You simply cannot make these tests with low-end home equipment. It doesn't make any sense, except for low to higher bitrates of MP3. The subjective reasons for liking MP3 over pure PCM are, by nature subjective.

As almost everything regarding our hearing is, even because of individual physical differences of the human being. Do you have a recent frequency response of your hearing? I have. It's not flat, I tell you!

Maybe I should invite you to Denmark, so you can hear what sound is supposed to sound like, Romeo. (Not at my place, I don't have a world class system like that )

No worries! My father has (most of it Accuphase stuff). And we both did some testing sessions e.g. I could keep 2 different very good CD players apart but in the end I wasn't quite sure if I like the more expensive one better because it sounded kind of "louder". It's all crap. You're screwing yourself. Do double blind testing - nothing else matters.

Reverend Romeo

Reminds me of a listening test they did with several independent experts from various professions (sound engineers, music professors and such) on mp3 encoding vs original PCM. Only one of them could tell a 192kbps encoded mp3 from the original, noone could tell the difference with 256kbps (in fact some identified the PCM as the mp3). They did that test in an absolute noise free environment with high end headphones and speakers.

I'm ready for a blind test, if said system is used. It has to be a high quality tweeter with zero distortion and preferably in an optimized listenig room. Accuphase... It's okay and expensive (no relation). So what speakers? I still would like to invite you one day. I doubt you ever heard treble like this. AB or ABX testing is great. I've had some surprises in the past. MP3 is also a weird creature compared to regular audio as it uses a psycho acoustic model to "trick" the mind. It's not as interesting to me as PCM vs PCM comparison at different sample rates with high-end equipment.

I'm with the "audiophiles are mad" crowd..

I listen to the music .. not the hardware . .

I do have to say that highly enthropic music does sometimes sound muddy in low bitrate mp3's etc.. but that's about it . .

Romeo Knight wrote: As almost everything regarding our hearing is, even because of individual physical differences of the human being. Do you have a recent frequency response of your hearing? I have. It's not flat, I tell you!

That's a bloody good point. If you have ears that stick out, you're going to hear more mid range than someone who's ears are perfectly sculpted to their head (like mine... NOT)!

Try it - put some music on and mess about with your ears. You'll 'ear the difference instantly.


"Fred had a unfair advantage when it came to the mixing process."

In the end, it's up to each individual to decide how far he will go and how much effort and money he will put into this. I fully agree with ABX testing being a good idea and I firmly believe a minority of people ever experience the reproduction equipment necessary for objective listening. I suppose an 8-bit forum is the wrong place to discuss this. Oh well, carry on...

XO: There you have it! It's a matter of taste, and no two people have the same taste (thank god for that!)... and luckily enough, taste is not debateable... those who care about extreme fidelity... well do that, and those who don't... don't.

In the end, I suspect that the people that strive for utmost fidelity are also those involved in serious professional mastering, so why not let us "simple musicians" care nothing about it, and leave those who hear the difference to master our music... this way everyone is happy... we make music with what we want, you master it with what you want, and the consumer fuck's it up the way they want.... everyone will be happy!!!...

... oh what a wonderful world we live in!

P.S. though I'd certainly like to hear with my own ears what you are talking about... Has always been kind of curious

razmo wrote:... even my own mother cannot comprehend when I tell her, that Shania Twain sound better on a pair of HIFI speakers to a pair of lowcost ones... "It's still Shania! can't you hear!?"... she says ....

The situation in a nutshell, but as an enthusiast, I don't really care for the average user, in the sense that sure, it's too bad that they never experience high fidelity, but that's their loss, not mine.

razmo wrote:... and should we not be happy that the "normal" people think this way?... I think that musicians are much more critical of quality than non-musicians in general.

Depends on whether you want better recordings and masterings.

Also, I don't believe all that many musicians are that critical of quality, many actually like lots and lots of compression.

Besides that, many of them have had their hearing trashed by too loud playing and suffer from tinnitus.

razmo wrote:XO: There you have it! It's a matter of taste, and no two people have the same taste (thank god for that!)... and luckily enough, taste is not debateable... those who care about extreme fidelity... well do that, and those who don't... don't.

That's right. Though initiatives such as Intel HDA and Microsoft Fidelity Testing using Audio Precision Two testing equipment will slowly advance the state of affairs for low-end consumers.

razmo wrote:In the end, I suspect that the people that strive for utmost fidelity are also those involved in serious professional mastering, so why not let us "simple musicians" care nothing about it, and leave those who hear the difference to master our music... this way everyone is happy... we make music with what we want, you master it with what you want, and the consumer fuck's it up the way they want.... everyone will be happy!!!...

Is it possible to ignore fidelity until the mastering process, you think? At least you need good recordings to work with from the outset.

razmo wrote:... oh what a wonderful world we live in!

It sure is! More or... less...

razmo wrote:P.S. though I'd certainly like to hear with my own ears what you are talking about... Has always been kind of curious

I have heard two superb tweeters so far - a ring radiator and, even better, a magnetostatic tweeter. Until you hear treble in that league, you're in the dark with respect to what is possible and what you can hear (hint: reproduction is key!)

Razmo, if you ever get the chance to get near some speakers such as these Eben, then take a listen. I hear they're far more durable than plain ribbon tweeters, so they don't degrade over time like those do.

XO: My mother actually HAS heard her music on my studio speakers... and yes, she says that she can hear a difference, but to her, it matters more that the speakers are places so that they look nice, no matter how silly they are placed (usually at different levels and near the roof! ... and I don't think she is the only consumer with this way of seeing things... it is probably to them what things that we don't pay attention is to us... I for an example has no whatsoever interest in cars... if I ever get a drivers license, I'd probably not care anything about the car, as long as it does it's job to my needs.... drive that is... though car enthusiasts would certainly shiver from my choice of car.... but do I care?... not really.... people are just different, and not everyone will find the same need for "resolution" be it cars, samples, pixels whatever.

I am an audio enthusiast though... I care for my music, and I want it to sound as perfect and good as I can possibly make it do, within my ears capabilities, and my wallet's not the least