4 ms·

The DAC isn't part of the format; although I respect the desire for a good DAC. I believe all lossy compression codecs from the past 20 or 30 years are percepti

The DAC isn't part of the format; although I respect the desire for a good DAC. I believe all lossy compression codecs from the past 20 or 30 years are perception based; ATRAC may have been one of the first ones, but it sure doesn't beat a CD which has no loss at all, unless ATRAC/minidisc regularly used higher bit depths than are supported by CDs. The sample rate is already "perfect" (in that humans could never hear a difference)

bayindirh 6y ago
You're right however, the DAC can make or break the resulting sound. If the DAC wouldn't be important, we wouldn't have Wolfson, TI Burr Brown or other extremely expensive units. Sony's DAC in this pipeline is like a polish. It doesn't blemish the sound after all that meticulous reconstruction. On the paper and spectrogram, an SP ATRAC track is not a match for WAV or FLAC, however it has all the ingredients to saturate a high-resolution system and create an enjoyable listening experience. Also it had enough resolution to handle higher-end amateur mastering (in SP mode) and general recording needs (in SP and LP2 mode). While 44.1KHz is perfect mathematically, 48KHz and 96KHz can create a smoother sound. That needs higher end equipment to hear clearly, but the smoothness is definitely there.
- apecat 6y ago
  The guy who created the Vorbis codec explains why this really isn't the case and why high sampling rates with ultrasonics actually are bad for playback quality. https://web.archive.org/web/20120306150922/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120306150922/https://people.xi... I would really encourage blind testing of one's assumptions about audio quality. Foobar2000 has this super nice ABX plugin that can handle automatic conversation to different codecs and or PCM sampling rates and depth from lossless sources. https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx I can personally recognize full bitrate mp3 (this ancient codec maxes out at 320 kbps where it still sounds colored). This is a well-made pre-configured test https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/... But move on to anything more modern than mp3, such as Apple's AAC encoder (there's a ton of bad AAC encoders out there) or Vorbis with VBR settings averaging at 256-320 kbps. You'll find it very hard to spot the lossy encodes in a blind test. Opus is astonishingly good at even lower bitrates.
  - apecat 6y ago
    Actually, here's an online ABX blind test set with several modern codecs at high bitrates, as well as the bad old mp3 garbage that ruined the reputation of lossy compression. I really challenge you to reliably detect the lossy sample in the tests for Apple iTunes AAC ~256 kbps and Spotify high quality. http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    > The guy who created the Vorbis codec explains why this really isn't the case and why high sampling rates with ultrasonics actually are bad for playback quality. I'll take a look to it, thanks for the link. That sounds interesting. > I would really encourage blind testing of one's assumptions about audio quality. I'd gladly take an ABX test and stand corrected. digital feed's ABX test is pretty good but needs some quiet time to do it correctly. I'll try to find some time to take it. I tried but, it's not good when you don't have time. > I can personally recognize full bitrate mp3. It's possible to recognize some equipment (software or hardware) by ear because of its distinctive sound dynamics. I've listened a limited set of stuff (amplifiers, headphones, CD players, etc.) and can recognize each of them by ear. I think starting early and playing some instruments in groups help with ear training. > But move on to anything more modern than mp3, such as Apple's AAC encoder... The latest generation of encoders sound extremely transparent. You're right about it. It's a good thing actually. I'm not grumpy about not being able to brag about identifying the codec of the file I'm listening to. I just want to hear enjoyable, detailed, high resolution music. If my ears and brain are happy about what they're hearing, I'm happy.
- astrange 6y ago
  The reason we have very expensive consumer DACs is that there are a lot of retired people who listen to music all day and have nothing better to spend money on. 48khz vs 44.1khz has the same sound quality in the human-audible range (maybe not if you're a dog); the actual reason DVD is 48khz instead of 44.1 is that it syncs up with 24fps frame rates better.
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    > The reason we have very expensive consumer DACs is that there are a lot of retired people who listen to music all day and have nothing better to spend money on. After a certain point, yes. I'd personally wouldn't distinguish a %0.001 THD Burr Brown DAC and %0.0001 THD Burr Brown DAC in normal listening volumes with a good amplifier and set of good speakers. I inadvertently own both variants (one is in my CD player, the other is in my sound card). However, being a former orchestra player, I assume I can hear a really bad DAC and a difference between 44.1KHz file and 48KHz file under some circumstances (like high detailed cymbals or other sounds in treble range). I'll happily stand corrected though.
    - genewitch 6y ago
      Interesting, my Icom IC-7300 has burr brown DAC and ADC to interface with computers via USB. it's good to know it's considered pretty good THD.

bayindirh 6y ago

You're right however, the DAC can make or break the resulting sound. If the DAC wouldn't be important, we wouldn't have Wolfson, TI Burr Brown or other extremely expensive units. Sony's DAC in this pipeline is like a polish. It doesn't blemish the sound after all that meticulous reconstruction. On the paper and spectrogram, an SP ATRAC track is not a match for WAV or FLAC, however it has all the ingredients to saturate a high-resolution system and create an enjoyable listening experience. Also it had enough resolution to handle higher-end amateur mastering (in SP mode) and general recording needs (in SP and LP2 mode). While 44.1KHz is perfect mathematically, 48KHz and 96KHz can create a smoother sound. That needs higher end equipment to hear clearly, but the smoothness is definitely there.

apecat 6y ago
The guy who created the Vorbis codec explains why this really isn't the case and why high sampling rates with ultrasonics actually are bad for playback quality. https://web.archive.org/web/20120306150922/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120306150922/https://people.xi... I would really encourage blind testing of one's assumptions about audio quality. Foobar2000 has this super nice ABX plugin that can handle automatic conversation to different codecs and or PCM sampling rates and depth from lossless sources. https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx I can personally recognize full bitrate mp3 (this ancient codec maxes out at 320 kbps where it still sounds colored). This is a well-made pre-configured test https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/... But move on to anything more modern than mp3, such as Apple's AAC encoder (there's a ton of bad AAC encoders out there) or Vorbis with VBR settings averaging at 256-320 kbps. You'll find it very hard to spot the lossy encodes in a blind test. Opus is astonishingly good at even lower bitrates.
- apecat 6y ago
  Actually, here's an online ABX blind test set with several modern codecs at high bitrates, as well as the bad old mp3 garbage that ruined the reputation of lossy compression. I really challenge you to reliably detect the lossy sample in the tests for Apple iTunes AAC ~256 kbps and Spotify high quality. http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
- bayindirh 6y ago
  > The guy who created the Vorbis codec explains why this really isn't the case and why high sampling rates with ultrasonics actually are bad for playback quality. I'll take a look to it, thanks for the link. That sounds interesting. > I would really encourage blind testing of one's assumptions about audio quality. I'd gladly take an ABX test and stand corrected. digital feed's ABX test is pretty good but needs some quiet time to do it correctly. I'll try to find some time to take it. I tried but, it's not good when you don't have time. > I can personally recognize full bitrate mp3. It's possible to recognize some equipment (software or hardware) by ear because of its distinctive sound dynamics. I've listened a limited set of stuff (amplifiers, headphones, CD players, etc.) and can recognize each of them by ear. I think starting early and playing some instruments in groups help with ear training. > But move on to anything more modern than mp3, such as Apple's AAC encoder... The latest generation of encoders sound extremely transparent. You're right about it. It's a good thing actually. I'm not grumpy about not being able to brag about identifying the codec of the file I'm listening to. I just want to hear enjoyable, detailed, high resolution music. If my ears and brain are happy about what they're hearing, I'm happy.
astrange 6y ago
The reason we have very expensive consumer DACs is that there are a lot of retired people who listen to music all day and have nothing better to spend money on. 48khz vs 44.1khz has the same sound quality in the human-audible range (maybe not if you're a dog); the actual reason DVD is 48khz instead of 44.1 is that it syncs up with 24fps frame rates better.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  > The reason we have very expensive consumer DACs is that there are a lot of retired people who listen to music all day and have nothing better to spend money on. After a certain point, yes. I'd personally wouldn't distinguish a %0.001 THD Burr Brown DAC and %0.0001 THD Burr Brown DAC in normal listening volumes with a good amplifier and set of good speakers. I inadvertently own both variants (one is in my CD player, the other is in my sound card). However, being a former orchestra player, I assume I can hear a really bad DAC and a difference between 44.1KHz file and 48KHz file under some circumstances (like high detailed cymbals or other sounds in treble range). I'll happily stand corrected though.
  - genewitch 6y ago
    Interesting, my Icom IC-7300 has burr brown DAC and ADC to interface with computers via USB. it's good to know it's considered pretty good THD.