No, I replayed the files in the PC I didn't burn them to CD. Very interested to hear people's thoughts on this, particularly if you think the methodology or conclusion is flawed in any way. Given the very low level of errors that can be detected, it is furthermore quite feasible that an error in one single bit would be quite audible as a click on replay, depending on its position in the corrupted word. So my conclusion from this fairly simple test is that yes, bit errors can well be audible and that even a single corrupted audio sample can be detected quite easily even if the amplitude of the error is significantly below that of the signal. It is worth pointing out that this is a near-worst-case scenario and it is quite possible that a real musical signal would render errors at this level inaudible, however that would necessarily be programme-dependent. I successively lowered the level of the rogue sample by 6dB (roughly equivalent to one bit's worth of amplitude) at a time to -12dB, -18db, -24dB, -30dB, however it was still clearly if faintly audible even at -36dB. Next I experimented with reducing the amplitude of the click to see at what point it would become inaudible. Too easy! Even at one second the resulting click was very clearly audible. My plan was to see how far into the track I could play before these data errors became audible. I changed one sample one second into the track, two consecutive samples two seconds in etc. Then using the 'Draw' tool I edited the waveform at one second intervals to introduce -6dB 'spikes' into both L and R channels. I took track 17 from Stereophile Editor's Choice: Sampler & Test CD (a 1kHz tone at -20dB) and imported it into Audactiy. Elk asked this very question in another thread so I decided to take a closer look. However, given that on an audio CD each 16-bit word (some simplification here) encodes one sample representing only 1/44100th of a second of audio it is legitimate to ask whether these errors are generally audible at all. This is particularly relevant when ripping CDs, since a data error that makes its way into the ripped file will remain there forever. I will test your examples this evening and let you know.As computer audiophiles we love to obsess about 'bit perfectness' ('bit perfection'?), in other words whether or not the integrity of the audio samples being properly preserved in the digital domain. A poor sound recording would give a poor “Bit Perfect” reproduction of course, beeing worse with hight rate sampling, and that why some SD file sound much better than some HD one. I do not like Mode 2)Īnd then I think this should be very close to so called “Bit Perfect” if no jitter at all,įurthermore, this does not necessarily involve any perrfection, considering that perfection is to find in sound pickup. Of course all processing is off, an only Direct Mode and Integer Mode are On. Installing both 3.5 and AS on a Mac Mini/MOJAVE and having Direct Mode on both, shows no difference for me. I also found AS “muffled” (talking of very little difference but real) with Big Sur, and I supposed that this was due to the absence of Direct Mode. Is that Audirvana does not stream the exact bit stream from your FLAC or DSF files to the DAC, it does some sort of cleanup/correction, even with everything off.Īccording to what criterion ? Why Audirvana would do this ? Your results may vary depending on hardware and ears. I’m using Sennheiser HD800S headphones and a Marantz HD-DAC1. With Studio the sound is muffled, like someone put a towel on the guitar. With Studio the sound is somehow modified, you still hear the overtones, but they feel like overtaken by a slight delay effect.ġ0th track: And I Love Her, sounds like he’s playing a nylon string classical, the into bass line is played with thumb flesh (no nail by the sound of it), With 3.5 the thumping bass line sounds very realistic and natural. You will hear the bigger imaging of v3.5, you will hear the clear overtones of the guitar strings, that’s exactly how they sound and feel if you play guitar. If you have a Qobuz subscription, find an album called WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT, by PAUL METHENY.ġst track: The Sound of silence, listen the first 35 seconds. It is up to you if you want to call this bit perfect. Where I am going with this, is that Audirvana does not stream the exact bit stream from your FLAC or DSF files to the DAC, it does some sort of cleanup/correction, even with everything off. ![]() The sound difference between these versions is much less apparent with Rock or Pop music. ![]() AS has a little but darker, pushed back tone. I did a lot of research that shows that for Jazz, Classical and Orchestral recording v3.5 has a more precise sound, that is more open and clear. With all processing, upsampling etc off Audirvana 2.x, 3.x have a very pleasant tone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |