Of the four new 16/44.1 files posted by Josef, my strong preference is for v1-Max. I don't think much of the two Rabbits or the Sox.

Mani.

Hey Peter, has anyone ever told you that you're absolutely crazy - I mean certifiable crazy?

In your last post, you gave the impression that you're a bit impatient. So, how've you survived the NOS1 ordeal these last, what, 24 months or so? Must have been painful for you...

You've no doubt had a much bigger dose of Schumann 'energy' than I've been exposed to - feel any different? Less impatient maybe? Haha.

Mani.

The Denon 103 is a very low compliance cartridge, so resonance could be an issue. I've tried to mitigate this by using a high-mass arm. The resonance peaks at ~9Hz, which is considered 'ideal'. But this does not say anything about the magnitude of the resonance. I have no idea how low it is in my setup.

Does anyone else hear any anomalies in the recordings that might be attributable to arm resonance?

Mani.

This is really difficult for me. On the one hand, I want to share my experiences as openly and honestly as I can. On the other, I think it's so important for people to try things themselves and come to their own conclusions. So, let me just say this: for all its implausibility, I think this Schumann device does have an affect on the sound... one that seems to work well in my system.

Mani.

I really don't think there is an issue with comparing the native-16/44.1 file (encoded with 'HDCD dither') with the native-24/176.4 file. However, if anyone believes that this is not totally fair, then fine, just use Josef's original 16/44.1 file for the comparison.

Mani.

AD_44.1 with wordlength set to HDCD16. BUT... Peak Extension and Low Level Extension were NOT applied.

(As explained earlier, my native-16/44.1 file was saved as a 20-bit file by the recording software - but the signal is 16-bit.)

Mani.

My understanding is that dithering has nothing to do with HDCD decoding, so shouldn't be an issue here.

I didn't use any of the three HDCD 16-bit amplitude encoding options.

Mani.

OK, here's more on 'dynamic decimation' from Michael Ritter:

"A filter designer who has to make a 'brick wall' filter at 22 kHz is confronted with conflicting requirements. You want to have flat frequency response out to at least 20 kHz, but you can't have any energy above 22 kHz or you will get alias distortion. This requires a very sharp multipole filter with a very steep transition between the passband and the stopband, which has a number of distortive effects on the signal. It smears transients and causes significant ripples in the passband. If you try to simplify the filter, then to avoid totally unacceptable aliasing you have to start rolling off at 13 to 15 kHz, and even then the signal will not be completely cut off by 22 kHz.

We slightly delay the 88.2kHz [or 176.4KHz] signal, not enough to cause any sync problems but enough that we can do a continuous Fast Fourier Transform. The resultant information is digitally analyzed in real time by an algorithm that determines, based upon a model of the mechanics of hearing and psychoacoustics, what is perceptually dominant in the signal from instant to instant. And that information is used to optimize the decimation filter. One moment you might have a sudden sharp transient, so it uses a filter with minimum time dispersion to pass the transient cleanly. The next instant, there might be a cymbal crash, so it uses a filter that minimizes alias distortion. All the filters are the same length, so you are not getting a phase shift as this is going on.

We never simply truncate. We have a palette of four 16-bit dither options. The reduced distortion-sharper transient response and reduced aliasing-becomes part of the digital recording and will be heard on any player, whether it has HDCD decoding or not."

HTH.

Mani

Josef, why do you 'suspect' that Keith Johnson and Michael Ritter (of former Pacific Microsonics) would be lying about the decimation processes in the Model Two?

I can create a 16/44.1 file from the native-24/176.4 file using the Model Two's digital-to-digital DSP engine. To do this, I will have to 'record' the Model Two's digital output as it downsamples the native-24/176.4 file to 16/44.1, so the two files will not be aligned or of quite the same length. Let me know if this will likely help us understand the Model Two's decimation process.

Mani.

To me too... not as good as the vinyl or the 24/176.4... but very engaging and enjoyable, with zero fatigue.

Mani.

I've just tried it again, and agree with you (and with my initial 'Subjective Assessment') - AI kills the sound. (It also takes way too long to load.)

Mani.

No, no chance of this. I'm always happy to learn...


There is one thing that I'm absolutely certain of - the Pacific Microsonics Model Two does NOT have poor quality downsampling capabilities. I know of at least one highly respected mastering engineer who prefers its downsampler to ANY software downsampler - and he's tried them all, including the one you use Josef.


This is not the case. The Model Two provides a number of 16-bit dither options, which I understand are pretty sophisticated. You may or may not be aware that all HDCD-encoded CDs are mastered on the Model One/Two and have all been decimated down from its internal resolution of 24/176.4 or 24/192. In any event, I haven't come across an HDCD-encoded CD that doesn't sound anything other than superb.


Maybe. But remember that my strong preference is for the analogue vinyl and the native-24/176.4 file, neither of which has this issue.

So, how is it that I can live with my native-16/44.1 and your new 16/44.1, even though they clearly sound very different from the vinyl and the native-24/176.4? (And by the way, don't get the impression that they sound the same as each other, as they really don't.)

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that I generally prefer as little DSP as possible. The more there is, the more the 'life' seems to get sucked out of the music. For example, I can't listen to your original 16/44.1 - I simply switch off.

I'm not sure where this leaves us really. But I'll just reiterate that I firmly believe that 16/44.1, although not perfect, can be made to sound really enjoyable.

Mani.

I received mine yesterday. The verdict is still out on whether it makes a difference.

BUT... I did have a really good night's sleep!!!

Will report later with more thoughts...

Mani.

Yes, definitely 'more similar'... but still different...

Firstly, I like the sound of the your new 16/44.1 - it's got 'life'. I listened to it all the way through first off and really enjoyed it. However, it's not as close as your original 16/44.1 is to the 24/176.4. The main difference seems to be in a 'thinning' of the sound. Everything seems to sound clearer, but at the expense of body to the instruments. In this respect, your new 16/44.1 is remarkably similar to the effect that QAP has on my native-16/44.1.

If I had to choose only one 16/44.1 file, it would be either your new 16/44.1 or my native-16/44.1. BUT... not because they sound like the 24/176.4 - they don't. But rather because they have 'life' and are just so enjoyable to listen to. My one caveat with your new 16/44.1 is that on prolonged listening, it might get a bit fatiguing (again, like QAP on my native-16/44.1).

So please, let us in on it - what did you change? I'm intrigued...

Mani.

Apart from the odd anomaly, and the strange behaviour at the peaks, these graphs look remarkably alike, don't they? Yeah, 1000 times better than one would expect from AI!

Now, is there a way to speed the processing of AI up???

Mani.