+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 161

Thread: Digital audio vs vinyl

  1. #121
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,786
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alphaGT View Post
    Interesting point, but Hi Rez digital files that are recorded in 24 bit, 196KHz, supposedly top out at 26KHz. This is often why people think it sounds better than 16 bit audio. Those harmonics hiding up there that we don't know we are hearing. Of course that isn't the only reason it sounds better, greater resolution is the main reason.
    Not the case although this is the myth that has grown up and inexplicably persists, as though hi rez audio is like hi rez tv, with more pixels per square inch adding more detail.

    In fact 'resolution' is no different to red book cd. The only possible advantage to hi-res audio is the ability to reproduce frequencies over 22Khz (if they exist on the recording and if the speakers are capable).

    This is why when you compare like with like it is near impossible to tell the difference.
    Current Lash Up:

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

  2. #122
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 9,139
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    This raises a very interesting point if frequencies above 20khz have been lost during analog to digital conversion, or
    if they are still there, but only lost by the playback side limiting that frequency.
    Time and again this gets raised, and it's a red herring.
    Most microphones don't have a response that gives usable signal at 20KHz.
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  3. #123
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Not the case although this is the myth that has grown up and inexplicably persists, as though hi rez audio is like hi rez tv, with more pixels per square inch adding more detail.

    In fact 'resolution' is no different to red book cd. The only possible advantage to hi-res audio is the ability to reproduce frequencies over 22Khz (if they exist on the recording and if the speakers are capable).

    This is why when you compare like with like it is near impossible to tell the difference.
    Dunno (we've been here before with this subject), I think Russell could have a point about 'hidden harmonics', although the mechanism for such is questionable.

    As you know, with the Raspberry Pi/IQ Audio DAC, which is technically capable of reproducing high-res files, I have access to 10TB of music, on both my hard-drives, and amongst them are 1000s of high-res recordings, a number of which I also have the identical album/music (same mastering) on standard red book. And I can switch back and forth between them, with a click of a mouse.

    Unquestionably, to my ears, the finest examples of the high-res recordings that I have available, sound significantly better than their red book counterparts - and I can hear that (very clear) difference on a 50-year old pair of Tannoys...

    I'll demonstrate it to you next time you come over, and see what you make of it.

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  4. #124
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    Time and again this gets raised, and it's a red herring.
    Most microphones don't have a response that gives usable signal at 20KHz.
    Hi Chris
    But some will, and there needs to be encouragement for designs that do this
    ie Earthworks http://www.earthworksaudio.com/micro...eries-2/qtc50/
    manages a frequency response to 50Khz, which is extraordinary , but proves it
    can be done, also Sennheiser 8050 goes to 50Khz

    others like the Sanken manage to an amazing 100khz http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product....cfm/3.1000400

    Similarly tweeters the very popular Kef T27 manages 40Khz ... wouldn't it be nice to hear its other half of capability,
    which requires taking on board that our hearing has perception not necessarily measured frequency, beyond 20 Khz

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Blackmer Blackmer worked on extending the frequency response of audio electronics
    beyond the conventionally accepted audible range of 20 kHz. He also published research on the value of ultrasonic frequencies
    in sound reproduction, claiming that the time resolution of human hearing is 5 microseconds or better—which would correspond
    to a frequency of 200 kHz, requiring audio equipment ideally to have a flat response to that frequency"

    A 1976 amplifier the Harmon Kardon Citation 12 managed 70khz Wow!
    The Denon cartridge DL103 manages frequency to 45khz - awesome !


    Cheers / Chris
    Last edited by Light Dependant Resistor; 23-05-2017 at 09:55.

  5. #125
    Join Date: Apr 2015

    Location: Central Virginia

    Posts: 1,736
    I'm Russell.

    Default

    Microphones are not digital, and even if the maker claims it goes to 20KHz, that is flat response to 20KHz, it does have output at 22K and 25K, but at some point less than flat. Say, 3db or 6db below flat. Unless it is equipped with a brick wall filter, and I'm not aware of any they do.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. #126
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,786
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Dunno (we've been here before with this subject), I think Russell could have a point about 'hidden harmonics', although the mechanism for such is questionable.

    As you know, with the Raspberry Pi/IQ Audio DAC, which is technically capable of reproducing high-res files, I have access to 10TB of music, on both my hard-drives, and amongst them are 1000s of high-res recordings, a number of which I also have the identical album/music (same mastering) on standard red book. And I can switch back and forth between them, with a click of a mouse.

    Unquestionably, to my ears, the finest examples of the high-res recordings that I have available, sound significantly better than their red book counterparts - and I can hear that (very clear) difference on a 50-year old pair of Tannoys...
    .
    I'm not disputing that you can hear clear differences but the explanation for that is that the files are not identical, or something else is going on in the way that they are processed and output. So me listening to them won't change that, you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the files and the system and identify the real reason as to why they sound so different. I guarantee it won't be because they contain frequencies above 22Khz.
    Current Lash Up:

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

  7. #127
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 9,139
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    Hi Chris
    But some will, and there needs to be encouragement for designs that do this
    ie Earthworks http://www.earthworksaudio.com/micro...eries-2/qtc50/
    manages a frequency response to 50Khz, which is extraordinary , but proves it
    can be done, also Sennheiser 8050 goes to 50Khz
    The fact remains that the majority of microphones used to record many of the classic albums of the 60s and 70s (which still make up the majority of recordings that get rehashed as "Hi Res") didn't do.

    Take yer good old Shure SM-57 - it's quoted frequency response is 40Hz-15KHz.
    It was developed for recording orchestras.
    It's not known as "the sound of rock" for nothing, because it's suitable for any job - drums, guitar, vocals, you name it, and it has been used for all of those jobs over the decades.
    It is still widely used.

    It's similar with the Shure SM-58, only it's response is 50Hz-15KHz.
    It's still the first choice stage mic of many artists, and it's still used in studios too.

    That's just two legendary microphones.
    Look at something more recent from Neumann, such as the TLM 103 - its response is quoted as 20Hz-20KHz, but it nose dives from around 16KHz.

    They're all great sounding mics, and will continue to be used for decades to come.
    They're not going to get thrown out because the frequency response doesn't go up high into the areas where bats use sound for echo location.

    I'm not saying that microphones that can capture sound above human hearing aren't out there.
    They are, and they're expensive.
    They're usually in the domain of the top flight recording studio, and they're getting thinner on the ground as each year passes. Even the mighty Abbey Road Studios has had its share of financial insecurity in recent times.
    And when you weigh up that you can buy ten SM-57s, for the cost of one Sennheiser 8050, which do you think is going to continue to be the most widely used?
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  8. #128
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    I'm not disputing that you can hear clear differences but the explanation for that is that the files are not identical, or something else is going on in the way that they are processed and output. So me listening to them won't change that, you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the files and the system and identify the real reason as to why they sound so different. I guarantee it won't be because they contain frequencies above 22Khz.
    With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.

    However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better.........

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  9. #129
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: Birmingham

    Posts: 6,772
    I'm James.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.

    However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better.........

    Marco.
    I am surprised your Hi Rez files always sound better as this had not been my experience as some of the mastering can be s@!t on Hi Rez material?
    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

  10. #130
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,786
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    With respect, much like me with regard to this subject, you're not qualified to guarantee anything. It's simply your educated opinion. That said, you're right, there could be other variables at play responsible for those differences occurring.

    However, it just seems a bit of coincidence that the sonic improvements are repeated, time and time again, with 100s of different examples of music, whenever I carry out said comparison (as previously detailed), with the high-res files ALWAYS, and I mean *always* (without exception) sounding better.........

    Marco.
    okay replace 'guarantee' with 'bet any amount of money you like'
    Current Lash Up:

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •