Fascinating article that explains why 24/192 is a poorer option that red book 16/44

[montesquieu]

Very worth the long read.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Of course the most important thing about any DAC process is the quality of the output stage ...

[Rothchild]

Surprised that you'd not seen Monty and his work cause significant ructions on this very board in the past.

You might also enjoy his digital show and tell shows: https://xiph.org/video/

[Reffc]

Superb article Tom, thank you for posting it. Explains things far more sensibly and comprehensively than just about any article I've read to date and makes perfect sense.

[lurcher]

Just one point I would question.

"Not encoding such a wide frequency range to begin with. You can't and won't have ultrasonic intermodulation distortion in the audible band if there's no ultrasonic content."

But if there was no >20k content in the first place there would be none in the recording, so given that the recording chain is just as prone to intermod as the replay, if we don't worry about the >20kHz signal we could be recording the intermod from the record electronics, but worrying about the signal up to 100hHz and making sure the analogue side is clean up to that frequency we are less likely to add signal where it doesnt exist in what we are recording.

[struth]

Not read it yet but it sums up my findings with the rpi. I initially thought i was getting an improvement in upscaling but eventually had to agree that standard red book is better overall.

[StanleyB]

These kind of articles make sense sometimes, but are way off the actual outcome. Designers like Paul Haynes, Nick (Lurcher), and me earn a living from designing stuff that defy the assumptions made in articles like this.

[Stratmangler]

Not read it yet but it sums up my findings with the rpi. I initially thought i was getting an improvement in upscaling but eventually had to agree that standard red book is better overall.

Upscaling to what?
If you were upscaling to multiples of 48kHz then you lost any reference to the original sample rate.
If you look at just red book - 44.1kHz multiplies up to 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz. It's easy to fill in the gaps because as you move up from one frequency to the next all you need to determine is a point midway between the samples.
Now change to upsampling 44.1kHz to 96kHz - none of the mid points exist, so to upsample from 44.1kHz to 96kHz requires total reconstruction, and it's totally dependant on the algorithm used in the process. There's no simple and direct relationship between what you start off with and your end result.

[lurcher]

Yes, the arguments are valid, but I think you can sum them up as "if you want to play back 192k recorded material, then you need a system thats clean up beyond 100kHz, or something in the system needs to filter in a low distortion way the higher frequencies. The same is true of CD, if I record a 19k and 19.5k signal to a CD at -3dB then a lot of systems will show a 500Hz tone on playback. But that is a fault in the playback system, not the recording.

[struth]

Please youself

[Mr. C]

The dictation of how good ANY recording sounds is down to the transfer from original master to each of the formats.

Another sweeping blanket statement Dac's are more than the sum of outputs stages I'm afraid (though having a quality I/V stage is important yes) just as the digital grounding, quality regulated power supplies, circuit board layout, radiated emission control, receiver stage and interpolation that may be in the equation. Plus many other factors

The main issue with so called high resolution files is in that fact many are just not that they are re-sampled red book studio masters not in-fact the original master file recorded at a genuine 24bit 88.2Khz and above.

In the same way there are bad vinyl and crap CD's there are pretty dire high resolution files out there as well.

The difference between genuine red book master files created with care and attention and genuine 24bit 88.2Khz and above are clearly audible on equipment which is capable of demonstrating the resolution.

I will cite you an example that happened this week:-

Gent is looking for a new dac to go in his office system, must have USB input and capable DSD over DOP as his collection contains a fair number of DSD files.

Brings his dedicated laptop with him plugs in starts listening plays a number of files between 44.1 and 192Khz all sound fine and differences are clearly heard between the formats especially with some of the same tracks with different sample rates.

Next he plays some of the dsd files which come out at 32bits and 384Khz instantly the presentational aspects take a step up, more openness, great space, instrument separation etc.

Now in my music library I have the same track @ 88.2Khz, so we play this through another rendering device. hey presto the SQ takes a significant upwards step.

Now is this the file quality or purely the delivery means?

We played the same file through his playback device it still improved on his own dsd file, so do you leave the original mastered format files alone or look at a better method of DSD music to 8 speed or above!!!

However I will say that a decently masted red book file is hard to beat.

[StanleyB]

If you were upscaling to multiples of 48kHz then you lost any reference to the original sample rate.
If you look at just red book - 44.1kHz multiplies up to 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz. It's easy to fill in the gaps because as you move up from one frequency to the next all you need to determine is a point midway between the samples.
Now change to upsampling 44.1kHz to 96kHz - none of the mid points exist, so to upsample from 44.1kHz to 96kHz requires total reconstruction, and it's totally dependant on the algorithm used in the process. There's no simple and direct relationship between what you start off with and your end result.

You are partly there :).

When you are using a DAC with a fixed oscillator frequency there are going to be some timing errors when playing back a wide range of sampling formats. The required oscillator frequency differs for each of the accepted sampling rates. So in the case of a fixed oscillator some sort of division needs to take place inside the receiver chip in order to generate the required MCLK frequencies. However, that division is in itself not accurate for each and every sample rate. In order to play back say 96KHz or 192KHz the oscillator frequency would need to be changed if you wanted bit perfect accuracy. I was trying to figure out how to put up a table of data but I can't get it to line up properly, but it would have been helpful if I could so that some of what I say makes more sense.

[Gazjam]

Have noticed the improvement with DSD files, even when converted to PCM.

[Oldpinkman]

A great (if brow-furrowing) read. Thanks for posting. I sort of thought I got most of it, 3rd time round - and know a man to talk it through with properly next time he's down.

The responses from the vested interests are predictable. It summed up my experiences and "perspective" very nicely in one paragraph


How to [inadvertently] screw up a listening comparison

The number one comment I heard from believers in super high rate audio was [paraphrasing]: "I've listened to high rate audio myself and the improvement is obvious. Are you seriously telling me not to trust my own ears?"

Of course you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible. I don't mean that flippantly; as human beings, we're all wired that way.

Much more succinct than I have ever managed

[Marco]

Very worth the long read.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Of course the most important thing about any DAC process is the quality of the output stage ...

And the power supplies it uses. Only huge, over-specced regulated linear PSUs cut it, sonically, IME. If it's badly-implemented SMPS (good ones are a different ball game), you can kiss goodbye to high-end sound, regardless of whatever else a DAC is fitted with! ;)

Marco.

[Marco]

A great (if brow-furrowing) read. Thanks for posting. I sort of thought I got most of it, 3rd time round - and know a man to talk it through with properly next time he's down.

The responses from the vested interests are predictable. It summed up my experiences and "perspective" very nicely in one paragraph


How to [inadvertently] screw up a listening comparison

The number one comment I heard from believers in super high rate audio was [paraphrasing]: "I've listened to high rate audio myself and the improvement is obvious. Are you seriously telling me not to trust my own ears?"

Of course you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible. I don't mean that flippantly; as human beings, we're all wired that way.

Much more succinct than I have ever managed

Personally, I'd switch off as soon as I read the word "believers", as the use of such language is patronising, insulting and disrespectful in the extreme, as it implies that the "believer" is deluded.

'Objectivists' always trot out the same hackneyed old shit, rather ironically too, when they are also 'believers', simply in a different 'faith' [the erroneous belief that science currently provides all the answers in audio, and when we hear something which can't be 'proven', via current scientific methodology, it is *automatically* imagined].

Yawn... :doh:

In that situation (along with allowing for 'grey-matter gullibility'), we should be considering the possibility of revealing a new phenomenon [or more likely an already existing one that's never been properly examined], not automatically dismissing what perhaps has been genuinely heard, simply because it appears to contradict currently accepted wisdom!

After all, at one time, we were all convinced that the Earth was flat...... ;)

REAL scientists have genuinely open and inquisitive minds, don't consider that the only 'truth' is what can currently be measured/what's written in 'Johnny's book of facts for the pseudo-scientist', or believe that all there is to know in audio (or our existence on this planet), is already known!

Marco.

[Gazjam]

...not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted.

[Marco]

:exactly:

Marco.

[Mr. C]

So Marco are you are high resolution believer or just a reformed Naim owner?

[Marco]

Lol, Tony! :eyebrows:

As you know, I'm not much of a digital fanboy, preferring the old fuzzy warbles, but when I have dabbled in high-res streaming, it's told me two things:

1) When it's done well, and reproduced through equipment capable of revealing its inherent technical superiority, the results can be stunning.
2) When it's done badly, it often sounds worse (or no better) than red book CD, reproduced by a CD player capable of revealing what that 'old school' format is truly capable of.

Most of the time, however, 'high-res' disappoints (quality of mastering is more important), and is rife with misunderstanding and exaggeration, unless one has access to the *really* good stuff, which I suspect you do :)

Trust your ears (and brain), as more often than not, in audio, they're telling you more of the truth than you might think!

Marco.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The motivation behind Mp3 was to compress to where can we get away with
offering absolutely !! no more, to a degree it is being repeated here in the xiph article

I have written extensively on dynamic range already in the forum
The lifetime work of David Blackmer is where audiophiles will pick up
the best information to not only play back audio properly, but also record it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49X3GKxH8EI

Also Bob Adams http://electronicdesign.com/analog/bob-adams-navigating-sigma-delta-roadmap
gives insight into inbuilt compromises the CD industry followed.

another who pushed the boundaries was Prof Keith Johnson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBR3kS4e_wk

You should having now listened and looked at those articles, that manufacturers always
head toward mediocrity, the clever audiophile realises this and looks further.

Cheers / Chris

[Marco]

You should having now listened and looked at those articles, that manufacturers always
head toward mediocrity, the clever audiophile realises this and looks further.


Precisely, Chris. Also, products produced by large commercial manufacturers will always be handicapped by the budgets imposed on their design by their accountants! ;)

The bit in bold is responsible for why I do what I do with hi-fi. Always push the boundaries and never accept mediocrity... 'Adequate' is only good enough for the boring and unadventurous! :exactly:

Marco.

[Marco]

P.S Tony, I've just read your post #10 (missed it before) and concur with pretty much everything you've written! :)

Marco.

[The Black Adder]

I always remember Musical Fidelity saying 'send it in to us for an upgrade to make it sound like it really should' or something to that effect... lol :mental:

The "RMAF10: High Resolution from the Masters" is an interesting watch... a little dull in places but informative.

[StanleyB]

I have written extensively on dynamic range already in the forum
The problem with dynamic range in the digital domain is that PCM has been given an output limit of 2Vrms. So every bit of audio data has to fit inside this limit. What that means is that a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 audio track will both have an upper dynamic range output voltage limit of 2Vrms.
That kind of limitation does not apply to say a turntable dynamic range output.

[Marco]

An interesting observation, Stan, and perhaps one that explains why some can't hear [count me in] the supposed technical inferiority of vinyl replay (when performed to the highest standard)?

Marco.

[Macca]

Technical explanations are all very well but they only preach to the converted and what we have here is really is to an extent a sociological phenomenon.

Back in 1983 the cutting edge audiophile would be using a Linn or Rega deck - or similar - solid state amp form Naim or similar, a Linn or Audio Technica cartridge - or similar - with Linn or Epos speakers - or similar. They might have made tapes for the car but other wise vinyl was the default reference. They didn't want their systems to sound like their dad's radiogram, warm and a bit shut-in - they wanted life, detail and 'pep' - and that combination delivered it - albeit at the expense of some tonality and with more 'difficult' recordings - a bit of harshness and sibilance. Mags from the time are full of reader's letters asking how to cure this issue. But on the whole they were happy.

Then along comes Compact Disc. Players are expensive and the discs are £12 a pop. That is £25 in today's money. Almost as much as a new release on vinyl is now. The audiophiles bought 'affordable' players and a few discs or went for a dem at their dealers (on similar set-ups to their own). They decided that CD was not as good as vinyl. It was a bit glassy, hard, seemed to lack dynamics and insight into the music. The first CD releases were older albums form the big players and the audiophiles already had them on vinyl so it was easy to compare.

So, understandably there was a bit of a furore as to why what was supposed to be a replacement for vinyl was 'not as good.' Much rubbish was talked, especially by magazines whose writers were all serious vinyl afficiandos. So digital is not as good as what we already have, quelle surpise - typical modern world, 'technology' is taking us backwards. Various reasons for this were propogated:

Our brains are analogue so digital doesn't 'sound right'
The digital sampling only gives an approximation of the wave form
Error correction makes the sound worse and with a Cambridge CD1 error correction unit it was possible to show that there were indeed read errors being corrected on all discs
CD sound is inherently distorted, especially with low level signals

Curiously at this time no-one suggested that the problem with CD was that 16/44.1 did not have enough bandwith or dynamic range to sound good.

This pretty much became the narrative. So despite none of the above being true it was pretty much accepted for a long time by a big chunk of the audiophile community that CD was 'flawed'.

This didn't bother the mass market who, after prices tumbled, readily embraced CD to play in their cars and on their Dixon's midi-systems. It was as simple to use as cassette and there was no longer the need to extract the remains of chewed up tape from their cheap and nasty double tape deck with high speed dubbing.

Manufacturers recognised that although the audiophiles were a vocal minority they comprised a small but affluent market ripe for the picking. First we got green pens, then laser cleaning kits, then outboard DACS, vacuum tube buffers, Legato Link, Bitstream. MASH, HDCD and oversampling. By now it was becoming harder to get new releases on vinyl. Either you had to mail order as your record shop no longer sold any vinyl, or there simply was no vinyl release. Audiophiles were pissed off so in desperation they tried some of these new attempts at CD and some proclaimed them 'a slight improvement.'

And then, at the turn of the century, the manufacturers came up with a new product for the audiophiles - 'High resolution' - whack up the sampling rate and bit depth and re-master a load of old albums - starting with the same classic albums that comprised the original CD releases. Audiophiles had a listen and were blown away. 'Much better than CD, on a par with my vinyl copy' they proclaimed. 'Compare it with the old CD release there is no comparison'

Of course the painstaking re-mastering (and in some cases re-mixing) was not considered. Finally the audiophiles could embrace digital and confirm what they new all along - CD wasn't good enough, lots of 'music' was missing due to its poxy specification. We all knew a 16 bit computer was outperformed by a 32 bit computer so this was just the same, wasn't it? 'There is more information on the disc so there is more music coming out of the speakers'. Or like high-def TV, there are more pixels so the sound/image is more detailed. It was clear validation for the rightness of their stand against CD. 'I said it was not good enough all along'

But if course that is all cobblers, we know that those old recordings that were the flagship of SACD/DVD-A were analogue and from the 1960s and '70s. There was no content on them above 15Khz because the mics and the tape machines could not pick it up or record it. So the higher sampling rate could not be adding anything extra, except noise. And 16 bits of dynamic range is a lot more than vinyl so 24 was overkill on overkill.

But the re-mastering was corking.

Even so the audiophiles still preferred their vinyl. but 'the gap had closed a little'.

So what actually happened?

The truth was those 1980s Linn/ AT/ Naim/ Monitor Audio/Epos systems were bright and hard - enough to balance out the slightly soft, mellifluous vinyl sound to give an overall enjoyable balance on most recordings. The CD players they bought were mid price and budget machines that had little attention paid to the power supplies and the analogue output stages - the two crucial areas. Like a record deck that picks up vibration and doesn't spin at the right speed, they were sub-optimal. In addition the clarity and neutrality of CD did the flat earth systems no favours. Finally the active pre-amp stages in the amplifiers being used, aside from being redundant when the source is outputting 2 V already were not much good. They added noise and distortion and over amplified the signal giving that hard, glassy, shouty sound.

Just consider - whilst us music fans did not think much of CD, the classical lovers embraced it almost to a man. Why? They were older than us and had systems with forgiving 70s speakers and amplifiers that emphasised tone over PRAT. Plus the mastering was almost always better for classical releases.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The problem with dynamic range in the digital domain is that PCM has been given an output limit of 2Vrms. So every bit of audio data has to fit inside this limit. What that means is that a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 audio track will both have an upper dynamic range output voltage limit of 2Vrms.
That kind of limitation does not apply to say a turntable dynamic range output.

Yes that would apply to a frequency limited data stream bearing similarity to analogue sources, which of course digital straight away doubles due to constraints expressed
in the Nyquist sampling theorem that the first sample must be double the anticipated upper audio frequency limit. So the horizontal
area to fit information gets wider and wider, up to where storage mediums cannot accommodate, which is then greatly assisted by companding
so that the medium fitting information is unburdened from holding everything and expansion is done externally

The limitations with digital recording having to reduce level, have been answered many years ago and addressed by DBX in their Type 4 White paper
ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type IV.pdf

Companding meaning compression followed by expansion seen in Dolby and DBX equipment, as yet not properly conquered by mainstream audiophiles
Hands up who has one or more of these a Dolby SQ or Dolby A or DBX Type 1 or DBX Quantum on their hifi shelf, and is using one of those to improve CD playback ?
... er me.

Cheers / Chris

[Marco]

Technical explanations are all very well but they only preach to the converted and what we have here is really is to an extent a sociological phenomenon.

Back in 1983 the cutting edge audiophile would be using a Linn or Rega deck - or similar - solid state amp form Naim or similar, a Linn or Audio Technica cartridge - or similar - with Linn or Epos speakers - or similar. They might have made tapes for the car but other wise vinyl was the default reference. They didn't want their systems to sound like their dad's radiogram, warm and a bit shut-in - they wanted life, detail and 'pep' - and that combination delivered it - albeit at the expense of some tonality and with more 'difficult' recordings - a bit of harshness and sibilance. Mags from the time are full of reader's letters asking how to cure this issue. But on the whole they were happy.

Then along comes Compact Disc. Players are expensive and the discs are £12 a pop. That is £25 in today's money. Almost as much as a new release on vinyl is now. The audiophiles bought 'affordable' players and a few discs or went for a dem at their dealers (on similar set-ups to their own). They decided that CD was not as good as vinyl. It was a bit glassy, hard, seemed to lack dynamics and insight into the music. The first CD releases were older albums form the big players and the audiophiles already had them on vinyl so it was easy to compare.

So, understandably there was a bit of a furore as to why what was supposed to be a replacement for vinyl was 'not as good.' Much rubbish was talked, especially by magazines whose writers were all serious vinyl afficiandos. So digital is not as good as what we already have, quelle surpise - typical modern world, 'technology' is taking us backwards. Various reasons for this were propogated:

Our brains are analogue so digital doesn't 'sound right'
The digital sampling only gives an approximation of the wave form
Error correction makes the sound worse and with a Cambridge CD1 error correction unit it was possible to show that there were indeed read errors being corrected on all discs
CD sound is inherently distorted, especially with low level signals

Curiously at this time no-one suggested that the problem with CD was that 16/44.1 did not have enough bandwith or dynamic range to sound good.

This pretty much became the narrative. So despite none of the above being true it was pretty much accepted for a long time by a big chunk of the audiophile community that CD was 'flawed'.

This didn't bother the mass market who, after prices tumbled, readily embraced CD to play in their cars and on their Dixon's midi-systems. It was as simple to use as cassette and there was no longer the need to extract the remains of chewed up tape from their cheap and nasty double tape deck with high speed dubbing.

Manufacturers recognised that although the audiophiles were a vocal minority they comprised a small but affluent market ripe for the picking. First we got green pens, then laser cleaning kits, then outboard DACS, vacuum tube buffers, Legato Link, Bitstream. MASH, HDCD and oversampling. By now it was becoming harder to get new releases on vinyl. Either you had to mail order as your record shop no longer sold any vinyl, or there simply was no vinyl release. Audiophiles were pissed off so in desperation they tried some of these new attempts at CD and some proclaimed them 'a slight improvement.'

And then, at the turn of the century, the manufacturers came up with a new product for the audiophiles - 'High resolution' - whack up the sampling rate and bit depth and re-master a load of old albums - starting with the same classic albums that comprised the original CD releases. Audiophiles had a listen and were blown away. 'Much better than CD, on a par with my vinyl copy' they proclaimed. 'Compare it with the old CD release there is no comparison'

Of course the painstaking re-mastering (and in some cases re-mixing) was not considered. Finally the audiophiles could embrace digital and confirm what they new all along - CD wasn't good enough, lots of 'music' was missing due to its poxy specification. We all knew a 16 bit computer was outperformed by a 32 bit computer so this was just the same, wasn't it? 'There is more information on the disc so there is more music coming out of the speakers'. Or like high-def TV, there are more pixels so the sound/image is more detailed. It was clear validation for the rightness of their stand against CD. 'I said it was not good enough all along'

But if course that is all cobblers, we know that those old recordings that were the flagship of SACD/DVD-A were analogue and from the 1960s and '70s. There was no content on them above 15Khz because the mics and the tape machines could not pick it up or record it. So the higher sampling rate could not be adding anything extra, except noise. And 16 bits of dynamic range is a lot more than vinyl so 24 was overkill on overkill.

But the re-mastering was corking.

Even so the audiophiles still preferred their vinyl. but 'the gap had closed a little'.

So what actually happened?

The truth was those 1980s Linn/ AT/ Naim/ Monitor Audio/Epos systems were bright and hard - enough to balance out the slightly soft, mellifluous vinyl sound to give an overall enjoyable balance on most recordings. The CD players they bought were mid price and budget machines that had little attention paid to the power supplies and the analogue output stages - the two crucial areas. Like a record deck that picks up vibration and doesn't spin at the right speed, they were sub-optimal. In addition the clarity and neutrality of CD did the flat earth systems no favours. Finally the active pre-amp stages in the amplifiers being used, aside from being redundant when the source is outputting 2 V already were not much good. They added noise and distortion and over amplified the signal giving that hard, glassy, shouty sound.

Just consider - whilst us music fans did not think much of CD, the classical lovers embraced it almost to a man. Why? They were older than us and had systems with forgiving 70s speakers and amplifiers that emphasised tone over PRAT. Plus the mastering was almost always better for classical releases.

Great post, Martin. I agree with most of it. The only main thing I'd add is that, in reference to the bit in bold, classical music fans, using CD, also had the advantage of enjoying total silence (no noise) during quiet passages of music, which can be rather different with a noisy (uncleaned or damaged) record! :)

Marco.

[Macca]

Great post, Martin. I agree with most of it. The only main thing I'd add is that, in reference to the bit in bold, classical music fans, using CD, also had the advantage of enjoying total silence (no noise) during quiet passages of music, which can be rather different with a noisy (uncleaned or damaged) record! :)

Marco.

Not to mention not having to interrupt the experience by having to get up and turn the record over half way through. Not a big deal with rock and pop where mostly each song is discrete and of itself but an unwelcome interruption when listening to a symphony or similar.

I should also have added the flat earth thing was for a 'live' sound from rock music - the 'it sounds like a live gig' thing - lots of 'whack' to snares and so forth. Even if it was a studio album and not supposed to sound like that, the hard edge of those systems gave that impression. That is also why all the moaning about recording quality started. Really smooth, slick productions sounded great because there were no hard edges to emphasise but more prosaic recordings sounded a bit coarse when in actuality they were fine. The solution then was to upgrade the deck/arm/cart/amps and so on but the basic character remained and a lot of people got dissatisfied.

A multi- track studio album should sound like it was made in a studio, and pieced together, since that is what it is. It should not sound like the band playing live through your own personal PA system.

[WAD62]

Great post, Martin. I agree with most of it. The only main thing I'd add is that, in reference to the bit in bold, classical music fans, using CD, also had the advantage of enjoying total silence (no noise) during quiet passages of music, which can be rather different with a noisy (uncleaned or damaged) record! :)

Marco.

Not just classical fans Marco, as a lad I remember having to return 4 copies of Wish You Were Here, that had a pressing fault...4 Saturday round trips to the city and back on the bus! And a month of 'tchick', 'tchick', 'tchick'...:steam: mind you I did end up keeping the posters and postcards from each copy;)

So I got into CDs as soon as I could afford to, probably about '86ish...

With regard to the benefits of higher resolution digital audio, it's purely an intellectual debate for me, as my hifi only exists because I have a CD (2.5k) & record (1k) collection...ok and a bit of radio/av duties ;)

Apart from a handful of HDCDs (I can't tell any difference between the 16bit and 20bit versions TBH), the CD's are all redbook, so the goal of the digital part of my system is to reproduce red book as well as possible.

Given that I continue to improve on the quality of red book reproduction, via various upgrades, that's where I'll concentrate my money and efforts :)

I've spent the last couple of years or so fettling the source, to a point now where the weaknesses lie downstream...newly constructed IPL speakers should be with me by next weekend...:eek:

http://www.iplacoustics.co.uk/S5tl%20Kevlar%202.htm

[Macca]

I've spent the last couple of years or so fettling the source, to a point now where the weaknesses lie downstream...newly constructed IPL speakers should be with me by next weekend...:eek:

http://www.iplacoustics.co.uk/S5tl%20Kevlar%202.htm

They look like they should be very good.

[Marco]

Not to mention not having to interrupt the experience by having to get up and turn the record over half way through. Not a big deal with rock and pop where mostly each song is discrete and of itself but an unwelcome interruption when listening to a symphony or similar.


Yup, good point :)


I should also have added the flat earth thing was for a 'live' sound from rock music - the 'it sounds like a live gig' thing - lots of 'whack' to snares and so forth. Even if it was a studio album and not supposed to sound like that, the hard edge of those systems gave that impression.


I think you're right, in that a lot of those systems sounded precisely like that, THEN. However, the interesting thing is listening to systems like that now, and comparing them with your current reference/benchmark. In that respect, would you still feel the same way?

Most LP12s I've heard (a ubiquitous component in any flat-earth system from 'back in the day'), for example, sound distinctly soft/warm and 'limp', compared with my Techy! ;)

Furthermore, speakers such as Linn Isobariks (another flat-earth favourite), would most certainly sound 'tubby' and somewhat shut-in, in comparison with what I hear through the Tannoys, in conjunction with my Copper amp. Therefore, perhaps it was mainly the Naim amps, from back in the day, that contributed a hard edge to the systems you mention?


A multi- track studio album should sound like it was made in a studio, and pieced together, since that is what it is. It should not sound like the band playing live through your own personal PA system.

Agreed, although personally I dislike some of the 'contrived'/processed (often tonally warm) sounding recordings, produced in studios [cue my usual moans about Steely Dan].

I am much more a fan of raw-sounding live recordings, as long as they've been done properly, simply because I like the recorded music I play on my system to sound REAL, especially with rock, jazz and classical.

In real life, when drums are being played, the sound should have plenty of 'thwack', or what I call 'blink factor' - and with a suitably realistic recording of such, a good system should portray something approaching that sort of intensity.

Therefore, if choosing between buying a recording featuring someone using a drum kit in a studio, or a recording of someone playing a REAL set of drums, acoustically, at a live gig - I'll go with the latter every time, as long as whoever has produced the recording has done a good job, and the drummer is suitably talented! :cool:

Marco.

[WAD62]

They look like they should be very good.

Hi Martin...

After the saga I've had with this kit they'll need to be...;)

I'm a bit rubbish at DIY, so I'd enlisted the help of a couple of mates, the guy helping with the cabinets had heart trouble, and the guy helping with the electronics, who's a bit bipolar attempted suicide...:(

Thankfully both are fit and well again...:)

But I've been stuck with an unfinished project for quite some time now...

However I've enlisted the help of Wilmslow Audio, who are top chaps, so they're about to be sprayed (matte black as they are obviously cursed!), and finished this week...to say I'm looking forward to hearing them is an understatement :eyebrows:

[Marco]

Hi Will,


Not just classical fans Marco, as a lad I remember having to return 4 copies of Wish You Were Here, that had a pressing fault...4 Saturday round trips to the city and back on the bus! And a month of 'tchick', 'tchick', 'tchick'...:steam: mind you I did end up keeping the posters and postcards from each copy;)


Good point. That happened to me too, but somehow I just put up with it. I only had a very brief spell away from vinyl (around the mid 90s), but quickly returned to it, mainly after missing playing my treasured 80s 12" singles! :)

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

These kind of articles make sense sometimes, but are way off the actual outcome. Designers like Paul Haynes, Nick (Lurcher), and me earn a living from designing stuff that defy the assumptions made in articles like this.

Well said!

This set of articles by one man who has one un-budging opinion on these things has been doing the rounds for ages, a few years. It gets used to proove people's already held beliefs, meanwhile it is lacking in areas not even drawn upon (like filter design at the A/D stage and D/A stages, impulse response of sample rates) and the real world practicioners like Stan come along and again tell us that the assumptions made from the theory are way off in practical reality.

The guy who wrote this is a software writer and not involved in hardware at all.

[Audio Advent]

The responses from the vested interests are predictable.

Vested interests in what? Many vested interests are simply their own ego! The ego is a much more powerful influence than money and sales..

People who want to shout out to the world "everybody listen to me! These guys are so wrong and I am the bringer of truth!!" so much that they bother to write webpages on a subject and make condescending videos ... I would say has a big vested interest by the way of their ego.

Same in a sense for people not hearing much difference between sample rates be that due to the source, equipment or whatever - they want the external self-assurance that they are not hearing it for good reason and want to show to others they are not being "fooled by this marketing BS!"

So.... how do you separate out who has the vested interest? Just keep an open mind I say and take the article on board whilst also taking on board others proclaming the opposite. There's no reason to even bother to take sides ... just use your ears to make decisions for yourself.

[Marco]

:clap: :clap:

That's a superb post, Sam! Post of the year, perhaps? I completely concur!!

Sadly, I think Richard sometimes falls into the category you've outlined in paragraph three, certainly when it comes to 'foo mains cables' and such like... ;)


... they want the external self-assurance that they are not hearing it for good reason and want to show to others they are not being "fooled by this marketing BS!"


Quite. Or because they get too wrapped up in the whole 'ears/brain being fooled' thing, and so develop an unhealthy obsession with blind testing, to the extent that they find it hard to trust their senses at all...

How sad is it when you've become so brainwashed by measurements and 'objective proof' that you're continually fretting about imagining everything you hear?? That's not a good or comfortable place for you head to be! :nono:

What you've written explains the rejection of many audio products by so-called 'sceptics' (read as cynics) or self-appointed 'consumer champions'.

Also, they want to hear (from cables, etc) what others claim they can hear, but for whatever reason can't (and subsequently feel 'left out of the gang'), so frustrated instead choose to go on forums [hello 'alfer'/'whatsnext', A.K.A Brian Hayter :wave:] and ignorantly pooh-pooh the valid contrary experiences of others, simply to feel better about themselves! :doh:

It's really quite pathetic, and acts as a disservice and considerable barrier to valuable learning.

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

Our brains are analogue so digital doesn't 'sound right'


Are they? Our hearing is quantised into descrete steps (to do with the hairs in the fluid that moves - don't know the biological terms), electrical impulses in our brain are of certain voltages, possibly quantised too. I'd say that in a way our brains are more akin to digital and very complex too.

Things don't sound "right" because our hearing is sensitive to things sounding odd compared to reality.. That is because of distortion, be that in ringing of filters or ringing causing distortion in opamps or voltage regulation noise causing distortion in dac chips and opamp output stages etc etc blah blah blah.

[WAD62]

Hi Will,

Good point. That happened to me too, but somehow I just put up with it. I only had a very brief spell away from vinyl (around the mid 90s), but quickly returned to it mainly after missing playing my treasured 80s 12" singles! :)

Marco.

Hi Marco, ironically it was the 80's 12"ers that finally drove me away from Vinyl, I had an Ariston deck (RB 200 perhaps?) which looked the bollox, had a concave platter, a threaded clamp, and different gears for speed control...so changing the speed was a faff!

A lot of the stuff I was buying was from independent labels, often without the speed on the label, so putting on a 3 minute single became a bit of a pantomime...hence I bought an Axis ;)

Having said that, the only vinyl I've digitised are my '80s 12"ers, everything else I've re-bought on CD... :)

[struth]

Are they? Our hearing is quantised into descrete steps (to do with the hairs in the fluid that moves - don't know the biological terms), electrical impulses in our brain are of certain voltages, possibly quantised too. I'd say that in a way our brains are more akin to digital and very complex too.

Things don't sound "right" because our hearing is sensitive to things sounding odd compared to reality.. That is because of distortion, be that in ringing of filters or ringing causing distortion in opamps or voltage regulation noise causing distortion in dac chips and opamp output stages etc etc blah blah blah.

Far as i know they are initially analogue but have the equ of an a to d convertor in there too persumably to send it off to the noggin in a digital format.

[Macca]

Are they? Our hearing is quantised into descrete steps (to do with the hairs in the fluid that moves - don't know the biological terms), electrical impulses in our brain are of certain voltages, possibly quantised too. I'd say that in a way our brains are more akin to digital and very complex too.

Things don't sound "right" because our hearing is sensitive to things sounding odd compared to reality.. That is because of distortion, be that in ringing of filters or ringing causing distortion in opamps or voltage regulation noise causing distortion in dac chips and opamp output stages etc etc blah blah blah.

'Our brains are analogue so digital doesn't 'sound right'' was one of the dafter reasons people gave for not liking digital. It isn't my opinion, nor that of any of the musicians I know. And if it was the case that DACs, filters and so on ruined the sound then all your vinyl LPs made since at least 1980 are ruined too since they all went through conversion to digital for the cutting lathe.

[Richard Kimber]

Is there a simple way for the inexpert, like me, to tell whether a piece of downloaded hi-res music is actually recorded at the stated resolution, or whether it is just an upsampled version of something recorded at 16/44100? There presumably is a software method of detecting this.

- Richard

[Jimbo]

This article may be quite relevant to this discussion?

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

[Macca]

Is there a simple way for the inexpert, like me, to tell whether a piece of downloaded hi-res music is actually recorded at the stated resolution, or whether it is just an upsampled version of something recorded at 16/44100? There presumably is a software method of detecting this.

- Richard

I believe you can use this software: http://sourceforge.net/projects/audacity/ to analyse the recording and see how much content there is above 22Khz

I could be wrong, however it is free to try.

[Rothchild]

Is there a simple way for the inexpert, like me, to tell whether a piece of downloaded hi-res music is actually recorded at the stated resolution, or whether it is just an upsampled version of something recorded at 16/44100? There presumably is a software method of detecting this.

- Richard

Yeah, grab an audio program that works with VST plugins. Reaper is an easy option: www.reaper.fm

Get a copy of SPAN from Voxengo: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/

Drop your audio file in a track in reaper and add span to the fx bin on the master channel (with the machine and reaper set up to play 24/192) look at the spectrum on Span, if there is a cutoff at 20kHz then the material has been upsampled from 44.1 if the cutoff is at 48kHz it's been upsampled from 96 and if the cut off is at 96 it from a pukka 192 source / signal chain.

[sq225917]

The problem with dynamic range in the digital domain is that PCM has been given an output limit of 2Vrms. So every bit of audio data has to fit inside this limit. What that means is that a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 audio track will both have an upper dynamic range output voltage limit of 2Vrms.
That kind of limitation does not apply to say a turntable dynamic range output.

Sounds like you are confusing dynamic range with output voltage. Balanced CD out is 4v, but it gives you no more dynamic range, than the 2v from single ended outs, just higher level all over. The voltage is meaningless without a SNR reference.

A CD player offers dynamic range in the signal some 15-20db better than the best vinyl is capable of. The absolute maximum output voltage is only an issue where system gain is limited.

CDs 2v is more than adequate especially given the SNR is usually 96db or better, after shaping.

There's no turntable phonostage combo out there CApAble of achieving the same SNR and hence dynamic range as the best red book playback can achieve. To claim otherwise is an utter nonsense.

Louder does not equal more dynamic range.

[guy]

I gave up reading at the point that sight was used as an analogue for hearing. Both light and sound are described as waves, but one is transverse the other longitudinal. Some analogies work others don't.

[StanleyB]

Sounds like you are confusing dynamic range with output voltage. Balanced CD out is 4v, but it gives you no more dynamic range, than the 2v from single ended outs, just higher level all over. The voltage is meaningless without a SNR reference.

A CD player offers dynamic range in the signal some 15-20db better than the best vinyl is capable of. The absolute maximum output voltage is only an issue where system gain is limited.

CDs 2v is more than adequate especially given the SNR is usually 96db or better, after shaping.

There's no turntable phonostage combo out there CApAble of achieving the same SNR and hence dynamic range as the best red book playback can achieve. To claim otherwise is an utter nonsense.

Louder does not equal more dynamic range.

:lol::lol::lol: :mental: