+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 188

Thread: 384khz?

  1. #31
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: Birmingham

    Posts: 6,772
    I'm James.

    Default

    Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?
    Main system : VPI Scout 1.1 / JMW 9T / 2M Black / Croft 25R+ / Croft 7 / Heco Celan GT 702

    Second System : Goldring Lenco GL75 / AT95EX / Pioneer SX590 / Spendor SP2

  2. #32
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?
    But only for so long, as the tape or master remains capable of producing analog copies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produc...ophone_records
    hence why digital Pulse Code Modulation Alec Reeves 1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Reeves was the first modulation widely used.
    Finding commercial acceptance with CD, capable of seemingly the same CD to be manufactured without loss. For instance Dire Straits CD Brothers in Arms
    is arguably the same item if purchased in the UK or Japan, and time is somewhat frozen, as the same CD can be made containing the same bits
    allowing for small losses in equipment doing the manufacture, again and again.

  3. #33
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Some confusion here. Bit rate (16, 24 etc) is only relevant to dynamic range, not frequency response. Since the dynamic range of pretty much any recording will be limited by the mastering to below what 16 bits is capable of, 24 bits will add nothing to the party.

    This is the problem we have with digital. People ascribe what they hear to completely the wrong thing and so the myth is created. So instead of getting genuine improvements in digital playback, we get manufacturers chasing the chimera of 'high resolution' because that is what the punters think is better.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  4. #34
    Join Date: Sep 2012

    Location: East Anglia UK

    Posts: 1,219
    I'm Marc.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?
    Yeah, my audio needs more rainbows in it.....

  5. #35
    Join Date: Nov 2010

    Location: Coventry

    Posts: 3,039
    I'm Will.

    Default

    My HiFi systems (1 main, 3 secondary) exist to play my cd & record collection, which is approx 2.7k red book CDs, and about 900 albums and 12"s. I switched to CDs when they became affordable in the late 80s.

    I ripped my then CD collection to FLAC/5 16/44.1 in 2009 (dBpoweramp, accurate rip etc.) and have been streaming since, so the priority for my main system is the best possible (within financial reason) playback mechanism for red book FLAC.

    I've been on a constant upgrade path...I won't bore you with the details, but in summary...

    2009; QNAP TS119/FLAC library & LMS 7.7.2> wifi > Squeezebox Classic>Belkin AV Pure Coax>Audiolab DAX(upgraded)>Audiolab 8000Q(upgraded)>Audiolab 8000P & 8000SX (upgraded)>AV Pure Speaker Cables x 2> Mission 753 (upgraded), all running from Tacima mains conditioners.

    to...

    2017; QNAP TS119/FLAC library & LMS 7.7.2> ethernet > Squeezebbox Touch/EDO/BOBW PSU/wifi off > KimberUSB/iFi Puifier2/iFi USB Power/iFi Gemini USB > Audiolab MDAC L2 'Toy'/MCRU LDA PSU > 2 x Audiolab 800 Ms (upgraded) > Van Damme 6mm hifi cable > IPL s5TL Mk2s, all running from MCRU gangs

    At most steps of the way there has been a noticeable improvement in the SQ of FLAC red book playback, obviously some upgrades have had a bigger effect than others, the speakers for example.

    The detail, imagery, soundstage, space etc. are fantastic (obviously dependent upon recording quality), but I'm sure that it can be improved upon, mains supply, or room conditioning perhaps...

    And eventually my point...

    Red book 16/44.1 has not been the limiting factor in my upgrades, quite the reverse, there's still more to be extracted from it IMHO

    So given that I'm not sure what a higher resolution brings, unless perhaps it eases the load on some DACs

    However that said I would like do a side by side comparison, if I could guarantee they were from the same master...

    The closest I've got were a couple of HD CDs rendered to both 24/44.1 and 16/44.1 by Dbpoweramp, but there was no difference between them to my ears...
    Last edited by WAD62; 15-02-2017 at 17:26.
    Cheers, Will

  6. #36
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WAD62 View Post
    My HiFi systems (1 main, 3 secondary) exist to play my cd & record collection, which is approx 2.7k red book CDs, and about 900 albums and 12"s. I switched to CDs when they became affordable in the late 80s.

    I ripped my then CD collection to FLAC/5 16/44.1 in 2009 (dBpoweramp, accurate rip etc.) and have been streaming since, so the priority for my main system is the best possible (within financial reason) playback mechanism for red book FLAC.

    I've been on a constant upgrade path...I won't bore you with the details, but in summary...

    2009; QNAP TS119/FLAC library & LMS 7.7.2> wifi > Squeezebox Classic>Belkin AV Pure Coax>Audiolab DAX(upgraded)>Audiolab 8000Q(upgraded)>Audiolab 8000P & 8000SX (upgraded)>AV Pure Speaker Cables x 2> Mission 753 (upgraded), all running from Tacima mains conditioners.

    to...

    2017; QNAP TS119/FLAC library & LMS 7.7.2> ethernet > Squeezebbox Touch/EDO/BOBW PSU/wifi off > KimberUSB/iFi Puifier2/iFi USB Power/iFi Gemini USB > Audiolab MDAC L2 'Toy'/MCRU LDA PSU > 2 x Audiolab 800 Ms (upgraded) > Van Damme 6mm hifi cable > IPL s5TL Mk2s, all running from MCRU gangs

    At most steps of the way there has been a noticeable improvement in the SQ of FLAC red book playback, obviously some upgrades have had a bigger effect than others, the speakers for example.

    The detail, imagery, soundstage, space etc. are fantastic (obviously dependent upon recording quality), but I'm sure that it can be improved upon, mains supply, or room conditioning perhaps...

    And eventually my point...

    Red book 16/44.1 has not been the limiting factor in my upgrades, quite the reverse, there's still more to be extracted from it IMHO
    This is the point I am always trying to make but it gets ignored. Some people seem to want a magic fairy to come along and waive a wand and make a digital format that sounds fantastic when played back through any old shite.

    You wouldn't use an Amstrad 2000 and expect your vinyl to sound like the voice of God, we all know it would sound bad and we would all blame the phono stage, not the vinyl. Apply this to digital , though and suddenly the problem is not the Amstrad 2000 but that the medium is not reproducing frequencies we cannot hear anyway! WTF is that all about?
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  7. #37
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,741
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    All I can say is that the few HD recordings I have heard (e.g. B&W downloads) sound better to me than most recordings.

    Of course that could just be the extra care taken by B&W in the recording and production process.

    Alternatively, it could be just be down to my excellent hearing!

    big ears.jpg

  8. #38
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    All I can say is that the few HD recordings I have heard (e.g. B&W downloads) sound better to me than most recordings.

    Of course that could just be the extra care taken by B&W in the recording and production process.

    Alternatively, it could be just be down to my excellent hearing!

    big ears.jpg

    Yes, that's what makes all the difference. A showcase recording will always sound good even if it does not have any frequencies over 22KHz.

    To get any benefit at all from hi rez the following are required:

    1) Recording was made at 192 KHz using mics able to pick up sound at 96Khz Without the mics being capable of this it won't be hi rez, regardless of the recording equipment.

    2) Amps: As well as the DAC being able to decode 192Khz you need an amplifier that is not bandwidth limited. In fact it needs to be flat out to 96Khz. Some are, but a lot are not. If your amp does not have this capability you are not hearing hi rez.

    3) Speakers: If the speakers are not flat out to 96Khz then you are not hearing hi rez. Very few speakers can do this, although at the turn of the millennium a few models came out. Since this vital link in the chain was not scrutinised as the manufacturers expected it would be, they mostly stopped bothering.

    Listening through vintage Tannoy DC? Then you ain't hearing high rez.

    Upshot: almost all people who think they are listening to hi rez are not. If it sounds very good compared to 'the original cd' or 'the download' or 'the vinyl' there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved: mastering, eq, deliberately making one version sound poor. All of these tricks have been and still are used to kid people that they are buying something new and improved.

    With this in mind, assuming it sounds better because frequencies greater than 22Khz are being reproduced starts to look a little bizarre from a logical point of view.

    If you can tick all of those boxes what would you expect to hear from hi rez? Compared to the same recording reduced to 16/44.1 you might be able to perceive a little more 'air and space' in the soundstage, if your kit is good enough, if background noise in your room is very low, if your ears are very good. Is this really worth the bother? Does it really justify the hype? I say no.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  9. #39
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,741
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Yes, that's what makes all the difference. A showcase recording will always sound good even if it does not have any frequencies over 22KHz.

    To get any benefit at all from hi rez the following are required:

    1) Recording was made at 192 KHz using mics able to pick up sound at 96Khz Without the mics being capable of this it won't be hi rez, regardless of the recording equipment.

    2) Amps: As well as the DAC being able to decode 192Khz you need an amplifier that is not bandwidth limited. In fact it needs to be flat out to 96Khz. Some are, but a lot are not. If your amp does not have this capability you are not hearing hi rez.

    3) Speakers: If the speakers are not flat out to 96Khz then you are not hearing hi rez. Very few speakers can do this, although at the turn of the millennium a few models came out. Since this vital link in the chain was not scrutinised as the manufacturers expected it would be, they mostly stopped bothering.

    Listening through vintage Tannoy DC? Then you ain't hearing high rez.

    Upshot: almost all people who think they are listening to hi rez are not. If it sounds very good compared to 'the original cd' or 'the download' or 'the vinyl' there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved: mastering, eq, deliberately making one version sound poor. All of these tricks have been and still are used to kid people that they are buying something new and improved.

    With this in mind, assuming it sounds better because frequencies greater than 22Khz are being reproduced starts to look a little bizarre from a logical point of view.

    If you can tick all of those boxes what would you expect to hear from hi rez? Compared to the same recording reduced to 16/44.1 you might be able to perceive a little more 'air and space' in the soundstage, if your kit is good enough, if background noise in your room is very low, if your ears are very good. Is this really worth the bother? Does it really justify the hype? I say no.
    Understand the point you are making but there seem to be some inconsistencies in your argument. Surely the mikes do not need to be capable of 96khz recording, only appreciably greater than 22khz. Similar argument for amp and speakers: just greater than 22khz. Obviously, the specs you outline are desirable but not essential to improved performance. Seems to me like saying that a new supersonic airliner that could fly at mach 1.5 is not worth building because Concorde could reach >mach 2 nearly 50 years ago. Surely most technological advance is incremental rather than exponential.

    My thinking is that all cds should be produced to the optimal standards and it does no harm to over spec production standards. When I listen to some of the BBC In Concert recordings from the 60s and 70s i am amazed at the standards of recording even though most listeners would have listened on crappy tv speakers.

    Personally, I begrudge paying more than a modest premium for high res music files (certainly no more than 10%). In fact, I buy very few and most of those I have were part of the B&W Society of Sound subscription. I speak as someone who is bewildered by the willingness of some purchasers to splash out vast sums on premium versions of products for which performance gains are at best marginal and in some cases imagined. I may be imagining the performance levels of my hd files but they sound to be a step in the right direction over basic cd level standards!

    Geoff

  10. #40
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    Understand the point you are making but there seem to be some inconsistencies in your argument. Surely the mikes do not need to be capable of 96khz recording, only appreciably greater than 22khz. Similar argument for amp and speakers: just greater than 22khz. Obviously, the specs you outline are desirable but not essential to improved performance. Seems to me like saying that a new supersonic airliner that could fly at mach 1.5 is not worth building because Concorde could reach >mach 2 nearly 50 years ago. Surely most technological advance is incremental rather than exponential.

    My thinking is that all cds should be produced to the optimal standards and it does no harm to over spec production standards. When I listen to some of the BBC In Concert recordings from the 60s and 70s i am amazed at the standards of recording even though most listeners would have listened on crappy tv speakers.

    Personally, I begrudge paying more than a modest premium for high res music files (certainly no more than 10%). In fact, I buy very few and most of those I have were part of the B&W Society of Sound subscription. I speak as someone who is bewildered by the willingness of some purchasers to splash out vast sums on premium versions of products for which performance gains are at best marginal and in some cases imagined. I may be imagining the performance levels of my hd files but they sound to be a step in the right direction over basic cd level standards!

    Geoff
    Well it seems to me that if a recording is touted as being 192 then it should be just that. If the mics were not capable of 96KHZ there is no point in having a sampling rate any higher than the mic is capable of.

    There is an argument for paying a premium for a better mastering. There is also an argument that if the master is 24/192 why not have that for replay in the home, instead of the 16/44 version? I accept those arguments. My case that it is all a bit of a con is that all the legacy recordings re-issued in hi rez cannot by definition be hi rez because the original recording is not hi rez. Short of re-forming the band and re-recording the album there is nothing that can be done about that. To claim that these re-issued recordings sound better because they have extended bandwith is an outright lie.

    We need to get away from magic beans, marketing-led solutions in audio and go back to improving our sound through improving the equipment that makes it.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •