XXHighEnd

[Moderator action : This was split from Praise for xxHighEnd (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2080.0) because of relevancy not on-topic in there (or anyway this here is a discussion within itself)]



I disagree. "Hi-rez" is more than treble performance. It is certainly true that the XX/NOS1 consept of ARC Prediction and filterless DAC elevates digital playback to new heights including the most natural and "real" treble I have ever heard.

However, "hi-rez" is also the difference between 16 and 24 bit. The latter providing a more smooth, fluid and "ripe" sound, especially in the bass. There is more low level information and acoustical presence with good hi-rez recordings. Redbook 16/44 has a kind of intrinsic "dryness", which I didnt notice before discovering (good) hi-rez material.

Fortunately, with XX/NOS1 I can have the best of both worlds. Nowadays I almost exclusively listen to hi-rez. There is no going back. Once you pop it, you can't stop it!

Hi Pedal,

Thanks for correcting my statement which gives a wrong connotation.

I think I should rather stated that "Hires does not necessarily give a better sound quality". This is what Robert Harley explained in his article.

Of course, I also enjoyed quality Hires materials too. But with AP up sampling XXHE, I have to pay attention to hear the difference.

Thanks and regards,
Praphan

Yes, there are many "fake" hi-rez titles out there. And some titles sounds poor even from the mastertapes, so the hi-rez transfer is useless anyway. (Garbage in/garbage out).

I agree. Especially in the treble. (But XX can't make up for the difference in SQ between 16 and 24 bits, though).

Hi pedal,

Totally unrelated to that I am the developer of XXHighEnd, but merely and foremost from a general perspective (of which you know I may have written hundreds of posts on the subject, although not in here) :

Can you qualify this by any means you can think of ?
And please, "listening" is not the answer, because I listen too, and I don't agree. So, what's left is theories and technical matters and outlays.

Or ?

Kind regards,
Peter

I was listening to some hi res last night from Lin Records and HDTT( High Definition  Tape Transfers) I unticked "fx" and left all upsampling on. The sound was really, really nice. Pedal, do you leave updsampling off when ypou play hi res?

OK. Right now I am full of work, but I will revert in a couple of days with theoretical explaination and music examples!

Hei pedal, take it easy on this one. You know that you are about the only one in here being quite explicit about Hires, and you also know that I usually go a bit against you. But it is *also* to be noted that it is and remains about the properly done ones, and that they virtually don't exist. So, have a real good example and it should work.

But you will remember the last time which went exactly the same; You picked the example and I trashed it. So there has to be something about subjectiveness as well. Therefore statements "out of the blue" are bound to be misleading (50% chance of course), and that is why I asked. But it shouldn't end up in me embarrassing you, just because you come up with an example which is technically completely wrong, but sounds good to you. :)

We can (or maybe should) also leave it to the latter : what sounds good to you *is* good to you. Nothing wrong with that. One thing though : if the absolute merits are not good at all, "we" shouldn't be telling others that it's good. Again, that's why the question. And btw, you should always be able to come up with something good, because obviously 24 (native) bits are better than 16. Almost  :) :) no doubt about that.

And to stirr the pot a little, you may have read elsewhere about that setup blind test with a 24/96 original recording which was A u/i I mangled in all kind of directions, and that I was not only able to tell which was what, but where I also told which one "should win" because it sounded the best and therefore should be a downsampled one (to 24/44.1 IIRC). Too hard to explain in brief here, but it told me that what *I* hear all the time, even from good Hires, is still not better than downsampled stuff (like we peceive it from Redbook) and for which I have some explanations which will go beyond my time of explaining (again, now here). Could be interesting, but on this forum we tend not to be so challenging towards eachother, which merely has its foundation in trust or general satisfaction and a "who cares" further. In the end it *is* important though, because at least for me it is and remains about progression in audio and it's a fragile thing.
Plus I can't do that alone.

It would be my idea to let it rest for now, under the conditions that you will be correct if it's only about properly done Hires. That I claim they don't exist, or at least not in quantities that I could be listening to those only from now on (like you suggest) is something else. So, I desire to be correct on that one, and *that* could be a subject - already because it is not subjective to anything. We grab that graphing whatever software, and look. So, when you tell me that you can find something like 200 titles I could be listening to forever, assuming that 200 is enough, *then* I grant you to be right. But may you come up with 20 only, then I'm afraid the other (couple of 1000 I think) which exist are unlistenable compared to their Redbook counterparts.

Did I change the subject now somewhat ? I think so ...

All the best !
Peter