384khz?

[the_doc735]

what is the point of DSD 384Khz.? When, the human ear is 20Hz - 20Khz? At best!!

Please enlighten me - thanx!

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Gosh standards are dropping fast, In the mid 1980's you could purchase a 644khz sampling rate converter, also with 20-20Khz frequency response.

[Sherwood]

At the Vulcan Science Academy we laugh at your 20-20k hearing!:ner:

However, we wince when you write with chalk on a blackboard!:nono:

[Sherwood]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aWKrqlO9YI

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Nice, but is it available on CD ? in the mean time- this is ( Metal Machine Music Lou Reed ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIMSbKU2oZM

[Sherwood]

Nice, but is it available on CD ? in the mean time- this is ( Metal Machine Music Lou Reed ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIMSbKU2oZM

Give me the chalk anyday! :wowzer:

[Macca]

what is the point of DSD 384Khz.? When, the human ear is 20Hz - 20Khz? At best!!

Please enlighten me - thanx!

From a sound quality point of view none whatsoever. From a selling magic beans to mug punters point of view, it's a ching ching.

[The Black Adder]

It's all marketing. But I've found that 88.2khz is really nice and there is a subtle difference. Very subtle.

After experimenting with the highest rates for quite a while I think people are missing the big picture as it's not until you hear a properly recorded analogue tape that you realise what's really going on.

[Sherwood]

From a sound quality point of view none whatsoever. From a selling magic beans to mug punters point of view, it's a ching ching.

I suppose you might want to provide your pooch with an aural treat. Depends on whether you can get content and equipment capable of reproducing up to 45khz

:concertina:

[struth]

32/384.. i use that on my rpi.

[The Black Adder]

Hi Grant... I was using that for quite some time too but I then gave 32/88 a go and to be honest I find it a tad better.

[struth]

Hi Grant... I was using that for quite some time too but I then gave 32/88 a go and to be honest I find it a tad better.

Interesting.. im playing with 24/88 with my headphones and 32/88 too. Not sure which i prefer yet. 16/44 has its charms too.

[Jimbo]

From a sound quality point of view none whatsoever. From a selling magic beans to mug punters point of view, it's a ching ching.

Spot on Martin. I would go a little further and suggest the whole HI Rez movement falls into that category.

[Sherwood]

Spot on Martin. I would go a little further and suggest the whole HI Rez movement falls into that category.

I have bought a few albums on Qobuz in 24/96 format and found them to be noticeable better than the standard res. I was particularly impressed by an Eric Bibb live album. I also subscribed to the B&W download service for a while and again found their hires downloads to be noticeably more detailed and airy than standard formats. I cannot say whether I would notice any difference in quality beyond that but I would suggest that the 16/44 standard is somewhat limiting, even with my 57 year old ears. Out of curiosity I downloaded some frequency sweep files recently. My upper limit appears to be around 17khz or just below that with my lower range somewhat below 20 hz.

Geoff

[Macca]

If you can hear a difference then it is usually different mastering between the two versions, or the version with the lower sampling frequency has been deliberately hobbled.

The whole hi-rez thing has been a massive con job right from the start. There are no excuses, those involved knew the score right from the off.

[ReggieB]

I think it depends on your equipment. I too buy a lot of my music from Qobuz, and the high res (24bit) music is better - but only by a tads whisker. So in the past it was not worth the extra money IMO.

However, as I've improved my streaming/DAC setup the difference has become more noticeable. My current combination of M2Tech Young DAC (http://www.m2tech.biz/it/young.html) and Simaudio Mind 180 (http://www.simaudio.com/en/product/61-streamer.html) streamer really sings with 24bit files. 16bit still sound fine so I'll not be looking to replace any of mine with 24bit versions. But for some music where I think I want that little bit extra clarity and space around the instruments/players (choral for example) I'll stump up the extra for 24bit.

[Sherwood]

I think it depends on your equipment. I too buy a lot of my music from Qobuz, and the high res (24bit) music is better - but only by a tads whisker. So in the past it was not worth the extra money IMO.

However, as I've improved my streaming/DAC setup the difference has become more noticeable. My current combination of M2Tech Young DAC (http://www.m2tech.biz/it/young.html) and Simaudio Mind 180 (http://www.simaudio.com/en/product/61-streamer.html) streamer really sings with 24bit files. 16bit still sound fine so I'll not be looking to replace any of mine with 24bit versions. But for some music where I think I want that little bit extra clarity and space around the instruments/players (choral for example) I'll stump up the extra for 24bit.

You're right. All depends upon the price/performance ratio. I only bought the Qobuz HD versions because there was very little difference in price over the standard versions but I was pleased with the quality. This difference is more evident on my home system than on my Sony HD music player. This links to a recent forum dialogue on the merits of premium products over entry level models. Seems to me it is about market segmentation and exploitation of vanity. Those interested might wish to look up Thorstein Veblen and his thoughts on "conspicuous consumption"!

Geoff

[the_doc735]

Gosh standards are dropping fast, In the mid 1980's you could purchase a 644khz sampling rate converter, also with 20-20Khz frequency response.

LOL

[the_doc735]

At the Vulcan Science Academy we laugh at your 20-20k hearing!:ner:

However, we wince when you write with chalk on a blackboard!:nono:

why?

[the_doc735]

Give me the chalk anyday! :wowzer:

LOL

[The Black Adder]

Hi Paul, please post constructively to the thread.

[Rothchild]

Although 24/96 has become popular for recording I think we've got to remember that audio rates 'traditionally' are rooted it 44.1 with 48 being a more video format. This may well feed in to Josie finding 88.2 preferable, as the maths needed for sample rate conversion is trivial whereas moving between 44/88/176 - 48/96/192 takes a bit more arithmetic, which may include some rounding.

Personally I think you should stick to the rate of the file, all this upsampling stuff is stretching credibility. There are real practical reasons why using high sample rates is helpful in a recording and mixing context, and fair enough if that chain is maintained through to the master it wont hurt to listen to the master at the rate it was tracked at but upsampling, meh, you can't unbake a cake and you can't put stuff back in a mix that isn't there already.

[Macca]

Personally I think you should stick to the rate of the file, all this upsampling stuff is stretching credibility. There are real practical reasons why using high sample rates is helpful in a recording and mixing context, and fair enough if that chain is maintained through to the master it wont hurt to listen to the master at the rate it was tracked at but upsampling, meh, you can't unbake a cake and you can't put stuff back in a mix that isn't there already.

Yes, exactly. And even a recording in 24 bit is likely to have its dynamic range limited by the mastering if a commercial recording.

The idea that the problem with digital audio was with its frequency response and its dynamic range is an odd one, given it is very good at both, but it has caught hold.

[the_doc735]

Hi Paul, please post constructively to the thread.

just being polite and replying with acknowledgements

[walpurgis]

just being polite and replying with acknowledgements

Hmm.

[the_doc735]

Yes, exactly. And even a recording in 24 bit is likely to have its dynamic range limited by the mastering if a commercial recording.

The idea that the problem with digital audio was with its frequency response and its dynamic range is an odd one, given it is very good at both, but it has caught hold.

yes I agree with this thought.

[struth]

thread tidied up. No more silly posts please.

[Gazjam]

Dabbled in hires over the years, my thoughts are that *true* 24bit vs 16bit is the biggest improvement, and any samplerate over 96khz isn't worth the premium.
As always, subject to the mastering.
Some of the most edge of the seat 'wow you are there' recordings I have are are 320K MP3!

My Dac does up to 32/384 and when I used Jriver initially I upsampled everything to max out the Dac...bigger is better, right?
As always, not that simple!

Nowadays I run everything at native depth and samplerate and appreciate any 24/96 recordings I have.
But I dont't sweat it, 16/44 can sound wonderful and even 320K MP3 of a well mastered performance.

New version of Roon has software upsampling, so got curious and gave it a whirl again.
Naa...
Can hear a difference when upsampled, but doesn't make it sound better.
Less natural, particularly in the feeling of 'air' feeling forced or artificial.

My £0.02 worth?
24bit is cool, get that if you can and up to 96khz is all you will ever need.
Better to get our knickers in a twist about stuff other this! :eyebrows:

[Jimbo]

Dabbled in hires over the years, my thoughts are that 24bit vs 16bit is the biggest improvement, and any samplerate over 96khz isn't worth the premium.
As always, subject to the mastering.
Some of the most edge of the seat 'wow you are there' recordings I have are are 320K MP3!

My Dac does up to 32/384 and when I used Jriver initially I upsampled everything to max out the Dac...bigger is better, right?
As always, not that simple!

Nowadays I run everything at native depth and samplerate and appreciate any 24/96 recordings I have.
But I dont't sweat it, 16/44 can sound wonderful and even 320K MP3 of a well mastered performance.

New version of Roon has software upsampling, so got curious and gave it a whirl again.
Naa...
Can hear a difference when upsampled, but doesn't make it sound better.
Less natural, particularly in the feeling of 'air' feeling forced or artificial.

My £0.02 worth?
24bit is cool, get that if you can and up to 96khz is all you will ever need.
Better to get our knickers in a twist about stuff other this! :eyebrows:


I have similar thoughts and experience on this as you Gary. I agree sometimes 24bit can sound superior to 16bit but depending on mastering. Even MP3 can sound acceptable if the recording and mastering are implemented well. I have heard DSD sound completely flat and 24 bit recordings worse than 16bit even of the same material.

However I do agree if you knowa recording is well mastered in 24bit it would be worth the premium. The only advantage I have actually heard from 24 bit recordings is in the top end air and finer acoustic detail.

I have not heard MQA yet but suspect the very top end full MQA resolved recordings are probably slightly better or easier on the ear.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I agree 24 bit is very good, however only if side technologies are also deployed
otherwise the recording is always being limited by digitals limitations.

The White Paper here ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type IV.pdf
explores the benefits of extending the natural limitations of digital, whilst acknowledging and
working cooperatively with proven analog techniques.

Most ECM label recordings form a great basis to hear just how good present day recording can be.
Tord Gustavsen Simin Tander and Jarle Vespestad "What was said " ECM 2465 being a good example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8tbk8qtf4 along with Jan Garbarek Rites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHbW2mtwZKM

As no one has yet asked what mid 1980's product had a 644Khz sampling rate, alerted to in Post 2
it was the DBX 700 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbx_Model_700_Digital_Audio_Processor

Cheers / Chris

[Jimbo]

Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?:)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

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/Production_of_gramophone_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.

[Macca]

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.

[Rothchild]

Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?:)

Yeah, my audio needs more rainbows in it.....

[WAD62]

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...:eyebrows:

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...

[Macca]

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?

[Sherwood]

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!

19369

[Macca]

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!

19369


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.

[Sherwood]

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

[Macca]

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.

[StanleyB]

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.
The mic is in the analogue domain. The sampling rate is in the digital domain. The sampling rate refers to how many samples are taken from the analogue waveform, not the frequency of the sampled signal. For best sampling performance the sampling rate has to be at least twice the highest frequency to be sampled. So if the mic was 96khz and the sampling rate was also 96khz, you wouldn't be getting a good signal at all.

[Rothchild]

The mic is in the analogue domain. The sampling rate is in the digital domain. The sampling rate refers to how many samples are taken from the analogue waveform, not the frequency of the sampled signal. For best sampling performance the sampling rate has to be at least twice the highest frequency to be sampled. So if the mic was 96khz and the sampling rate was also 96khz, you wouldn't be getting a good signal at all.

Martin is right (well you both are), the top frequency captured by a 192kHz (sample rate) recording is 96kHz so the mic needs to be able to accurately capture frequencies up to this point in order to make use of the available bandwidth.

[Sherwood]

No disagreement on your last point. Too much of what is touted as audiophile fare preys on the vanity and ego of potential buyers and their susceptibility to marketing lies. I have fallen prey to this myself with regards to cabling though only to a limited degree (I am an economist after all and part with my funds very reluctantly). I have a very revealing system (more than one in fact) and I have been playing around with speaker cables recently. Fortunately, this has not cost much since my monoblock amplifiers require only 0.5 m lengths. I was amazed at how little difference in sound quality from some heavy duty self built Belden coaxial cable at one extreme, and some old DNM solid core cable I found. The DNM cable is extremely thin but did not have anywhere near the effect I expected on bass performance! Go figure!

I would be extremely concerned if the audio and hifi industry were deliberately "hobbling" performance in order to promote their premium products but it would not surprise me! Fro me the price/performance curve is key and the principle of diminishing marginal returns kicks in pretty quickly in the vast majority of instances!

Geoff

[Rothchild]

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.

Geoff

96 is 'appreciably greater' than 22, at what point above 22 is appropriate to roll off the response?

[Macca]

The mic is in the analogue domain. The sampling rate is in the digital domain. The sampling rate refers to how many samples are taken from the analogue waveform, not the frequency of the sampled signal. For best sampling performance the sampling rate has to be at least twice the highest frequency to be sampled. So if the mic was 96khz and the sampling rate was also 96khz, you wouldn't be getting a good signal at all.

Hence to fully exploit a 192 sampling frequency you need a mic capable of 96kHz.I grant that even if you don't fully exploit 192 you will still capture higher frequencies up to whatever frequency the mic is capable of, say it was 25 KHz that you won't get with 44/1 KHz but this does not get us away from the fact that the benefit to playback is tiny to non exisitent. Studios do not have 24/192 recording kit so they can issue recordings to end users at this resolution, not primarily anyway. They have them to nullify issues in processing. Even 16/48 would be overkill for home playback.

[struth]

A lot of this high rez stuff is just upsampled 16/44 to my mind, then rebadged.

[Sherwood]

96 is 'appreciably greater' than 22, at what point above 22 is appropriate to roll off the response?

The point I am making (or trying to) is that I am sure that improvements are possible, audible and measurable at some intermediate sampling frequency. Great if 96khz is achievable but why exclude the potential gains from some intermediate rate (say 48khz).

I do not claim to have golden ears but I have never found the high frequency performance of cd to be comparable to an equivalent (level) analogue system.

Geoff

[Rothchild]

A lot of this high rez stuff is just upsampled 16/44 to my mind, then rebadged.

That's easy enough to spot, just throw it through a spectrum analyser, if it's upsampled you'll see a sharp cut-off at 20(ish)kHz upsampling can't add back content that wasn't there in the first place.

[Macca]

I do not claim to have golden ears but I have never found the high frequency performance of cd to be comparable to an equivalent (level) analogue system.

Geoff

I'd agree. But the cause of that is nothing to do with frequency response. Even the best RTR will only manage the same as CD. Vinyl in a best case scenario is about 24Khz, if you are using a moving coil cart, less with MM. Of course it still has to be on the recording to hear it, mics again, and even then it has to get past the low cut filter on the cutting head. In practice all 3 mediums are within a whisker of each other in terms of upper limit of response: logically, vinyl's subjective superiority in that area must be due to something else.

[WAD62]

I'd agree. But the cause of that is nothing to do with frequency response. Even the best RTR will only manage the same as CD. Vinyl in a best case scenario is about 24Khz, if you are using a moving coil cart, less with MM. Of course it still has to be on the recording to hear it, mics again, and even then it has to get past the low cut filter on the cutting head. In practice all 3 mediums are within a whisker of each other in terms of upper limit of response: logically, vinyl's subjective superiority in that area must be due to something else.

Due to a blunder by Amazon I was sent a vinyl version of A Winged Victory For the Sullen's new album 'Iris', given I'd only been invoiced for the CD (half the price), and was keen to hear it I opened it and had a listen. I also re-ordered another CD copy...

Here's the caviat, my assumption is that as it was only released last month, and that the band are heavily into audio quality (particularly vinyl), and that both the CD and record are from the same master...

The record sounded pretty good on my old TT setup, (Linn Axis/basik+/Denon DL-110/Rotel RQ-970BX/Audiolab 8000Q/8000Ms...etc. but in comparison to the ripped CD there's quite a gap, particularly in the fine detail, imaging, and noise floor.

So much so I've ordered a new phono pre-amp, perhaps a new TT eventually...my analogue side has been heavily overtaken by my digital kit in terms of SQ :eyebrows:

[Qwin]

I'm no expert on digital, but there seems to be some confusion in this thread between the audio frequency and sample rate of the recording?
Sample rate being the number of measurements taken per second to try and capture any played frequency.
In order to record a smooth facsimile of the sound wave the sample rate has to be many times faster than the time span of the audio frequency wave.
Its like plotting a line graph of the wave, the more points you register the smoother the curve.

That's how I've understood it, bit rate v sample rate on the graph axis.

Or am I tilting at windmills :scratch:

[Macca]

I'm no expert on digital, but there seems to be some confusion in this thread between the audio frequency and sample rate of the recording?
Sample rate being the number of measurements taken per second to try and capture any played frequency.
In order to record a smooth facsimile of the sound wave the sample rate has to be many times faster than the time span of the audio frequency wave.
Its like plotting a line graph of the wave, the more points you register the smoother the curve.

That's how I've understood it, bit rate v sample rate on the graph axis.

Or am I tilting at windmills :scratch:

Increasing the sampling frequency increases the sound frequency you can record, The higher the sampling rate, the higher the frequency. That's all it does, increasing the sampling rate does not give a 'better look' at the frequencies lower down. The accuracy of the sampling can't get any higher.

[Rothchild]

I'm no expert on digital, but there seems to be some confusion in this thread between the audio frequency and sample rate of the recording?
Sample rate being the number of measurements taken per second to try and capture any played frequency.
In order to record a smooth facsimile of the sound wave the sample rate has to be many times faster than the time span of the audio frequency wave.
Its like plotting a line graph of the wave, the more points you register the smoother the curve.

That's how I've understood it, bit rate v sample rate on the graph axis.

Or am I tilting at windmills :scratch:

No, you're right. The maximum audio frequency that can be reconstructed from a digital sample is half the sample rate. Hence 44.1kHz being the sample rate for CD, as for most people 20kHz is the upper end of the audible spectrum. So cd's can contain audio up to 20kHz and then there's a bit of space left for the roll-off of a low pass filter that stops anything over 22.05kHz being fed in to the converter.

One of the (more plausible) arguments for higher sample rates isn't that there's an awful lot more useful, audible, information above 20kHz, but that the necessary phase issues and 'ringing' that are caused by the low pass filter are moved up in to an area where they are unlikely to be heard.

[Rothchild]

The point I am making (or trying to) is that I am sure that improvements are possible, audible and measurable at some intermediate sampling frequency. Great if 96khz is achievable but why exclude the potential gains from some intermediate rate (say 48khz).

I do not claim to have golden ears but I have never found the high frequency performance of cd to be comparable to an equivalent (level) analogue system.

Geoff

Ahh, I get you.

Yeah, it's a fair point. One of the most interesting things to come out of the materials that came out around the release of MQA is the discussion of the optimum sample rate (which from memory was about 56kHz) allowing for the realistic most extreme top frequencies created by musical instruments (cymbals and the like) and allowing for a soft enough roll off of the LPF to prevent ringing, phase and aliasing getting in to the audible spectrum.

As I remember the argument continued that whilst 56kHz would be plenty sufficient it's non-standard, we have 96kHz as a standard sample rate and therefore that would do.

[Sherwood]

Ahh, I get you.

Yeah, it's a fair point. One of the most interesting things to come out of the materials that came out around the release of MQA is the discussion of the optimum sample rate (which from memory was about 56kHz) allowing for the realistic most extreme top frequencies created by musical instruments (cymbals and the like) and allowing for a soft enough roll off of the LPF to prevent ringing, phase and aliasing getting in to the audible spectrum.

As I remember the argument continued that whilst 56kHz would be plenty sufficient it's non-standard, we have 96kHz as a standard sample rate and therefore that would do.

That would make sense to me as 96/192 seemed rather excessive to capture these frequency outliers! It is entirely possible that the benefits I believe I hear from these recordings lie in the boundaries either side of the 20-20k range.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I'd agree. But the cause of that is nothing to do with frequency response. Even the best RTR will only manage the same as CD. Vinyl in a best case scenario is about 24Khz, if you are using a moving coil cart, less with MM. Of course it still has to be on the recording to hear it, mics again, and even then it has to get past the low cut filter on the cutting head. In practice all 3 mediums are within a whisker of each other in terms of upper limit of response: logically, vinyl's subjective superiority in that area must be due to something else.

However a failed patent by Murray Crosby created the copying of that contained information (somehow) which created research into companding
Companding being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding products then that were made by Dolby and DBX and many others enabled raw devices to
provide much greater dynamic range. DBX and Dolby have been a feature of almost every recording since 1965

Now why audiophiles have yet to catch up with the benefits companding provides remains a deep mystery, hopefully now to be investigated.
A cursory look provides very simple somewhat crude methods have been offered to consumers ie Dolby B. or Type 2 DBX simply because there is no discussion
or interest.

Surely this is what a forum like this is about, to raise awareness of an attribute for audio reproduction.

Anyone with a Dolby A or other more modern equivalents like Dolby SQ, hands up.

Back to Murray Crosbys invention ..RIAA is a reverse emphasis deemphasis curve, anyone know why ?

DBX too need to be contacted to start building a Type 4 digital domain product, and not hide behind
the fence offering Type 4 just with their poor analog stages. DBX have every ability to release
a world class product, holding a major slice of patents. need I say any more Harmon owners of DBX
now taken over by Samsung. Oh Dear !

Maybe as a suggestion Nebo should demonstrate companding equipment, by simply recording a CD
on to a audio hard disk recorder with and without companding. Could be interesting

[the_doc735]

so after the many technical arguments in this thread (which I can't understand), would there be any point in "upgrading" my audiolab M-DAC for a chord hugo? The 44KHz seems the kindest to my (tinnitus) ears, 192 is definitely out for my ears!! Seems obvious that high quality hifi sound is only available if it is recorded at the same high quality to begin with. I always have to reduce the treble in my software as it is far too sharp and sizzling! I personally do not think that I would notice any difference between the sound quality of these two DACs, but interesting to see anyway? Thanks for all the responses!

A few misconceptions to clear:
* Hugo is battery powered and cannot be powered any other way.
* Hugo charger imparts absolutely no noise back into the Hugo direct signal path, due to Hugo's isolation topology, so keeping the charger plugged in is fine. However, as with any ac wallwart it may backflow noise into the rest of a system so use care to isolate it as well as possible.
* The Hugo has undergone some chassis changes (larger holes for most inputs/outputs). If its new, anyone would be insured to get the revised one, of course.

[Rothchild]

would there be any point in "upgrading" my audiolab M-DAC for a chord hugo? The 44KHz seems the kindest to my (tinnitus) ears, 192 is definitely out for my ears!! Seems obvious that high quality hifi sound is only available if it is recorded at the same high quality to begin with. I always have to reduce the treble in my software as it is far too sharp and sizzling! I personally do not think that I would notice any difference between the sound quality of these two DACs, but interesting to see anyway? Thanks for all the responses!
.

Aside from bragging rights and a box swap fix it seems unlikely, if you're already turning the treble down in the audible spectrum you probably don't need any more info beyond that. Perhaps you should look at the rest of your system and see if you can't come up with something that has a naturally more pleasing sound to you?

Interestingly the spec for the m-dac says it's 20Hz-20kHz (despite being able to decode higher sample rate files) the Hugo just doesn't publish its analogue frequency response. It's a relevant point to consider I think, just because the chip can decode and put put audio signals up to 192kHz is the analogue stage up to it too (and not just the dac output, the amp input and the speakers too)?

[Rothchild]

However a failed patent by Murray Crosby created the copying of that contained information (somehow) which created research into companding
Companding being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding products then that were made by Dolby and DBX and many others enabled raw devices to
provide much greater dynamic range. DBX and Dolby have been a feature of almost every recording since 1965

Now why audiophiles have yet to catch up with the benefits companding provides remains a deep mystery, hopefully now to be investigated.
A cursory look provides very simple somewhat crude methods have been offered to consumers ie Dolby B. or Type 2 DBX simply because there is no discussion
or interest.

Surely this is what a forum like this is about, to raise awareness of an attribute for audio reproduction.

Anyone with a Dolby A or other more modern equivalents like Dolby SQ, hands up.

Back to Murray Crosbys invention ..RIAA is a reverse emphasis deemphasis curve, anyone know why ?

DBX too need to be contacted to start building a Type 4 digital domain product, and not hide behind
the fence offering Type 4 just with their poor analog stages. DBX have every ability to release
a world class product, holding a major slice of patents. need I say any more Harmon owners of DBX
now taken over by Samsung. Oh Dear !

Maybe as a suggestion Nebo should demonstrate companding equipment, by simply recording a CD
on to a audio hard disk recorder with and without companding. Could be interesting

Compansion is a tool for maximising signal to noise ratios in systems with limited dynamic range, 24bit is not a limit on dynamic range (indeed it can capture sounds quieter than can be heard and louder than can be tolerated). Most discussion on the various boards here seems to show that folk want to 'extract' more of what's in the groove or 'get every last bit' from their source, aside from a bit of corrective eq there doesn't seem to be a lot of hunger for home remixing.

RIAA is a necessary evil to prevent the needle skipping out of the groove, nothing more. (it's also the reason why all these 'the groove of a record is an absolutely true analogue of the recorded signal' claims aren't quite right - it's an exact analogue subject to the phase issues of a filter (at both the input and the output - if they are truely identical then they cancel out, but in the analogue domain 'truely identical' is almost impossible).

[Macca]

16 bit for home replay is already overkill, CD was originally going to have 14 bit dynamic range. Listen to a 24/192 recording downsampled to 16/44.1 with no mastering - it will rip your tits off with dynamic range. I was actually afraid for the speakers.

With mastering the dynamic range is reduced to a level acceptable for home replay, often nowadays it is reduced too much, but that is a separate issue.

There really is no need to worry about dynamic range of digital systems, it is just more tilting at windmills. But punters like to see bigger numbers and so the marketing departments give them what they want.

[Mr. C]

Howabout looking at this from a different perspective, how many of you can tell the difference between an amplifier with a bandwidth of the second harmonic and one that is capable of producing over the 5th harmonic whatever it maybe SS or Valves even if your speakers have a maximum bandwidth of 1.5 harmonics?

And still keeping it simple lats say using a good quality red book recording or vinyl

Sample rate is merely a mathematical solution of the original redbook 44.1Khz, the only time you will really benefit is by playing the record file at its true RECORDED rate, by using up-sampling you are merely multiplying the original file format by a pre determined number, for this an SRC chip-set will be used and these usually contain another a PLL (Phase lock loop) of some description which acts as another re-clocking device in the data reclaim chain. The extra bits are just random noise which are added to make up the numbers. Unless that file was recorded at that NATIVE format configuration.

Simple test compare a native 176.4Khz 24 bit (raw) to the same native file in 44.1Khz/16bit format that has been up-sampled.

While I do agree that the marketeer departments of many firms have been going into overdrive with DSD quad speed, DXD, sample rates up to 768Khz etc, what is really relevant and what really matters?

Again very important fact in how good the actual recording sounds is down to the transfer from the original master no matter what the stated sample rate, was the mixing engineer on form that day, did the record company have an influence on HOW the recording sounded, budget constraints and equipment the mastering was performed on.

Over the years at shows more than a few visitors have been surprised at how good a decent red book file can sound.

With regard to hearing ranges although the maximum for human hearing can be as much as 23Khz in your early 20's (providing no Motor Head concert bass bin visits!) with have a s/n ratio of around 128dB give or take a few.

By the time you reach 40 you maybe lucky to have 16Khz and some have as low as 9Hz however think about the harmonic structure of music, if studio's recorded with 20Khz microphones the music you listen to at home would just not sound the same.

Without question we cannot hear into those 2nd, 3rd, 4th and above harmonics, however we do perceive them if they are taken away we unequivocally know they are missing.

Working out what is relevant to the individual is more important that my dac does 768Khz and 32 bits, maybe so but can the rest of the replay chain ACTUALLY demonstrate what that piece of equipment is genuinely producing.

[Qwin]

This kind of explains where I was coming from.
http://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/

In my limited experience, I have heard improvements with higher resolution, but think 24/96 is the point to stop, as beyond this the increased demand on hardware (cost) does not justify the small, if any, audible gains.

There used to be a lot of criticism of the CD sampling format, are we suddenly defending it?

[struth]

I was told you only "sense" up to 35kh, sometimes much less. so no need to go any further than the next multiple

[Sherwood]

As interesting as this discussion is, it has become somewhat circular. Can we agree the following or at least establish whether we have a consensus on the following:

a) It is desirable to achieve the maximum possible "fidelity" in any recording process.
b) The end product (i.e. a recorded piece) can only be as good as its weakest link.
c) It is not possible to reproduce something that was not captured by the original recording process no matter how much processing power you throw at it. You can paint and polish a turd but .........
d) The original cd format was constrained by the technology of the time with regard to data storage so that the 20-20k range was achievable rather than ideal
e) That the extreme sampling and upsampling rates being developed are (perhaps) driven by marketing divisions and that the benefits of higher sampling rates, dynamics, and frequency bandwidth can be achieved without having to go anywhere near these stellar rates.
f) That if a company sells an HD music file it should be a genuine HD recording (HD at all stages) and priced honestly (i.e. reflecting actual production costs rather than as a form of market segmentation and profit maximisation).


I think back to the development of the 12" record and the point made in an earlier post about RIAA equalization. When the long playing disc was being developed there was a mechanical problem that presented designers with a trade off between length of recording and fidelity. The width of a groove varies according to the loudness of the music being recorded and the frequency of the signal. Low frequency and loud signals cut a wide groove in the disc which ultimately limited the number of grooves that could be cut and in turn the length of a recording. An electronic solution was found to this mechanical problem by cutting the discs with artificially reduced bass and then restoring that bass in the playback process. That increased the play time of the 12 inch disc to the 20 odd minutes we have today. As good as this technology can sound it can bettered albeit by sacrificing playback time. I have a Morrisey Mullen 12 inch Jazz single by EMI which has just a single track on each side which gives some idea of how the lp is comprised by storage limitations. Short of making a 24" LP I guess that not much could be done with vinyl to overcome this problem. The same is not true of the cd. Better technology and better engineering have made it possible to get more data onto a disc at a lower cost.

I for one, want to hear more (true) HD content so long as I am not being ripped off.

Geoff

BTW: Here is a not very good recording of that EMI record. Worth keeping an eye out for as it makes a very good test record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUV2mnCCbXA

[Jimbo]

The mathematical and technical aspects and possibilities of digital audio are interesting to kick around but ultimately no matter what is said it comes down to a simple fact. Can you hear the differences? The industry loves to bandy round and promote both hardware and software with a range of specifications for digital audio playback, however often these translate into meaningless gibberish when you actually listen.

As Mr C mentioned in his post mastering is everything in any format. Buying a Hi Rez recording in 24bit / 196 kHz is not a guarantee of anything other than your pockets will be picked for more cash!

[Macca]

As interesting as this discussion is, it has become somewhat circular. Can we agree the following or at least establish whether we have a consensus on the following:

a) It is desirable to achieve the maximum possible "fidelity" in any recording process.
b) The end product (i.e. a recorded piece) can only be as good as its weakest link.
c) It is not possible to reproduce something that was not captured by the original recording process no matter how much processing power you throw at it. You can paint and polish a turd but .........
d) The original cd format was constrained by the technology of the time with regard to data storage so that the 20-20k range was achievable rather than ideal
e) That the extreme sampling and upsampling rates being developed are (perhaps) driven by marketing divisions and that the benefits of higher sampling rates, dynamics, and frequency bandwidth can be achieved without having to go anywhere near these stellar rates.
f) That if a company sells an HD music file it should be a genuine HD recording (HD at all stages) and priced honestly (i.e. reflecting actual production costs rather than as a form of market segmentation and profit maximisation).



I'd agree all that, although d) is debateable: as discussed previously red book cd is more than adequate unless you have a large room in a very quiet place, devastatingly good (and compatible) system and unblemished hearing.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The mathematical and technical aspects and possibilities of digital audio are interesting to kick around but ultimately no matter what is said it comes down to a simple fact. Can you hear the differences? The industry loves to bandy round and promote both hardware and software with a range of specifications for digital audio playback, however often these translate into meaningless gibberish when you actually listen.

As Mr C mentioned in his post mastering is everything in any format. Buying a Hi Rez recording in 24bit / 196 kHz is not a guarantee of anything other than your pockets will be picked for more cash!

But to compound the difficulty of hearing differences as I love a simple solution too to be suggested, are sorry to say, source impedances, cable types, attenuation methods the focus of my life for the last 7 years , let alone speakers. IMO power amps are the least problematic component.

As an example today I heard a Mcintosh valve amp into Spendors costing $20.000... it really was rubbish compared to my Quad 306's and JR149's all of $1200.00

So the whole chain has to be somehow be identified as Go Doubtful or No Go specification so a typical audiophile feels happy stepping out the door
or maybe the next room if online to find his or her best choice of component. The McIntosh being a valve design simply needed a high impedance speaker
like high impedance LS3/5a also made by Spencer and Dorothy, but this had not dawned on those trying to sell it.

[Qwin]

Sherwood - from my point of view there is nothing to disagree with in your summing up, its a fair take on the situation.

[Rothchild]

I'd agree all that, although d) is debateable: as discussed previously red book cd is more than adequate unless you have a large room in a very quiet place, devastatingly good (and compatible) system and unblemished hearing.

Well put Geoff, I agree with Martin on point d. 20-20,000 isn't so much representative of a technical limit, rather a practical assessment of what's actually necessary (as per the discussion about where the 'sensible point' between 44.1 and 96kHz sample rates actually lies).

I would also add that e is correct when discussing playback systems, high sample rates have real-world practical benefits to a recording / mixing engineer (eg lower recording latency as the buffers are cleared more often) but are much less relevant in a 2 channel playback system (as per point d)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

As interesting as this discussion is, it has become somewhat circular. Can we agree the following or at least establish whether we have a consensus on the following:

a) It is desirable to achieve the maximum possible "fidelity" in any recording process.
b) The end product (i.e. a recorded piece) can only be as good as its weakest link.
c) It is not possible to reproduce something that was not captured by the original recording process no matter how much processing power you throw at it. You can paint and polish a turd but .........
d) The original cd format was constrained by the technology of the time with regard to data storage so that the 20-20k range was achievable rather than ideal
e) That the extreme sampling and upsampling rates being developed are (perhaps) driven by marketing divisions and that the benefits of higher sampling rates, dynamics, and frequency bandwidth can be achieved without having to go anywhere near these stellar rates.
f) That if a company sells an HD music file it should be a genuine HD recording (HD at all stages) and priced honestly (i.e. reflecting actual production costs rather than as a form of market segmentation and profit maximisation).


I think back to the development of the 12" record and the point made in an earlier post about RIAA equalization. When the long playing disc was being developed there was a mechanical problem that presented designers with a trade off between length of recording and fidelity. The width of a groove varies according to the loudness of the music being recorded and the frequency of the signal. Low frequency and loud signals cut a wide groove in the disc which ultimately limited the number of grooves that could be cut and in turn the length of a recording. An electronic solution was found to this mechanical problem by cutting the discs with artificially reduced bass and then restoring that bass in the playback process. That increased the play time of the 12 inch disc to the 20 odd minutes we have today. As good as this technology can sound it can bettered albeit by sacrificing playback time. I have a Morrisey Mullen 12 inch Jazz single by EMI which has just a single track on each side which gives some idea of how the lp is comprised by storage limitations. Short of making a 24" LP I guess that not much could be done with vinyl to overcome this problem. The same is not true of the cd. Better technology and better engineering have made it possible to get more data onto a disc at a lower cost.

I for one, want to hear more (true) HD content so long as I am not being ripped off.

Geoff
BTW: Here is a not very good recording of that EMI record. Worth keeping an eye out for as it makes a very good test record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUV2mnCCbXA


Point (d) refers to but has not identified the Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorem constraints- these dictate the upper audio frequency of the CD medium.
Pioneer Legato Link as example was a brave attempt at stepping beyond the Nyquist Shannon constraint of 20k actually 22,500 . .the last 2500 being
reserved for filtering. Another entire subject suggests about what type and shape of filter is provided in CD players. Legato Link players are very good by the way.

Point (c) emphasis on the word process as stated please, rather than recording. the recording process may contain companding methods, dither shaping and transient capture
where the recording device integrated circuits are placed to read ahead of the information being captured.... just a few refinements that occur during the recording process that
then follow through to really record the event.

[Sherwood]

Point (d) refers to but has not identified the Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorem constraints- these dictate the upper audio frequency of the CD medium.
Pioneer Legato Link as example was a brave attempt at stepping beyond the Nyquist Shannon constraint of 20k actually 22,500 . .the last 2500 being
reserved for filtering. Another entire subject suggests about what type and shape of filter is provided in CD players. Legato Link players are very good by the way.

Point (c) emphasis on the word process as stated please, rather than recording. the recording process may contain companding methods, dither shaping and transient capture
where the recording device integrated circuits are placed to read ahead of the information being captured.... just a few refinements that occur during the recording process that
then follow through to really record the event.

Chris,

interesting, I had one of those Pioneer CD players in the mid 90s: a High Bit Legato Link as I recall. It was one of the few players I heard at the time that did not have what I perceived as a harsh grainy sound. I recall that when I first started buying cds I found the sound to be so brittle that I used to record the CD to tape and to listen to the tape instead.

This seems consisten with my (unsubstantiated) belief that the benefits of HD may be largely in the frequency range just above 20khz.

Geoff

[Macca]

Any issues you have with CD sounding harsh, grainy, brittle etc are due to the rest of the playback system, they are not intrinsic to the medium, nor is it anything to do with limitations in frequency response.

This is what I have been trying to say all along. I have about 10 working cd players varying in original retail price from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand. I can hook any of them up to my current system and, whilst they all give their own take on the proceedings, none of them exhibit any of these negative qualities. If you don't believe me come over and have a listen, bring the CDs that sound worst to you.

[Rothchild]

Point (d) refers to but has not identified the Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorem constraints- these dictate the upper audio frequency of the CD medium.
Pioneer Legato Link as example was a brave attempt at stepping beyond the Nyquist Shannon constraint of 20k actually 22,500 . .the last 2500 being
reserved for filtering. Another entire subject suggests about what type and shape of filter is provided in CD players. Legato Link players are very good by the way.


I disagree (although this is semantics)

Sampling theorem simply states that the highest audio frequency in a digital capture is half the sample rate (nothing directly to do with cd - indeed cd was a long way off when the theorem was developed - cd is evidence of the accuracy of the theorem, not a consequence of it),

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that the actual cutoff for CD audio (aka 44.1kHz) is 22.05kHz and that there is a low-pass filter in operation nominally between 20kHz and the upper end of the spectrum. Yes the implementation of this filter will have an impact on the ultrasonic performance of a player (any digital player, not just CD)

[Sherwood]

Any issues you have with CD sounding harsh, grainy, brittle etc are due to the rest of the playback system, they are not intrinsic to the medium, nor is it anything to do with limitations in frequency response.

This is what I have been trying to say all along. I have about 10 working cd players varying in original retail price from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand. I can hook any of them up to my current system and, whilst they all give their own take on the proceedings, none of them exhibit any of these negative qualities. If you don't believe me come over and have a listen, bring the CDs that sound worst to you.

Martin,

At the time I refer to my system comprised a Croft Super Micro Preamp, Art Audio Quintet power amp, and Rogers LS35a speakers. I think this was a pretty decent playback system and one that performed exceptionally well with vinyl playback. I must have listened to a dozen cd players through this system and all compared unfavourably to the vinyl front end. I can only report my subjective impressions and it is very difficult to find precise adjectives to describe those perceptions, but overall the sound was not comfortable (to me) and I found that I was spending less time playing music on cd than I had previously with vinyl. This may be something specific to my hearing. I have grown to learn to live with cd sound out of necessity since I have been working in the tropics for the last two decades and all my vinyl and associated equipment went into storage. In recent years I have ripped all my cds (too many to be willing to admit to) to FLAC and have found the ripped files to sound better than the original cd. It may be that this is a limitation of my cd player (a Cambridge Audio Azure 840C) or just something wonky about my hearing.

It would be nice to get over to Staffordshire. I was on the faculty at Keele for 10 years running an MBA Programme for health professionals. However, I've not been back since 1997 when I left academia for self employment. If I do make it over I'll expect the oat cakes to be there!

Geoff

[Macca]

Hi Geoff

I was at Keele '87 to 90 so we must have been there at the same time although I didn't read Economics.

I agree you had a tidy little system there and your experiences exactly mirror mine from 1995 when I first bought a player through to 2015 when I first tried a passive pre-amp. My conclusion is that for CD only a quality passive or a very, very good active pre-amp are truly suitable, anything else, including budget valve pre-amps (done that too) will mask the benefits of digital and make it an also-ran compared to even a modest vinyl set up.

I'm not saying this is the answer since ascribing improvements/changes to the wrong thing is a major pitfall of this hobby. That is simply what I have observed to date. As a proponent of game theory I like to analyse systems and uncover how they work so as to more effectively exploit them. Hi-fi is possibly one of the hardest systems to crack, since there is so much bullshit around, plus even the people who design the stuff do not seem to be sure exactly what is happening.

Anyways you are always welcome to visit, I can supply oatcakes in any quantity ;)

[Sherwood]

Hi Geoff

I was at Keele '87 to 90 so we must have been there at the same time although I didn't read Economics.

I agree you had a tidy little system there and your experiences exactly mirror mine from 1995 when I first bought a player through to 2015 when I first tried a passive pre-amp. My conclusion is that for CD only a quality passive or a very, very good active pre-amp are truly suitable, anything else, including budget valve pre-amps (done that too) will mask the benefits of digital and make it an also-ran compared to even a modest vinyl set up.

I'm not saying this is the answer since ascribing improvements/changes to the wrong thing is a major pitfall of this hobby. That is simply what I have observed to date. As a proponent of game theory I like to analyse systems and uncover how they work so as to more effectively exploit them. Hi-fi is possibly one of the hardest systems to crack, since there is so much bullshit around, plus even the people who design the stuff do not seem to be sure exactly what is happening.

Anyways you are always welcome to visit, I can supply oatcakes in any quantity ;)

I have effectively dispensed with preamps on both my systems and would be reluctant to go back to using one. For vinyl I had TdP fit my EAR834P with a volume control at the time of purchase and that feeds directly into the Art Audio. For my digital system(s) I stream directly from either a Cambridge CXN or RPi with Digi Berry + directly into monoblocks.

[Macca]

And do you find the Cambridge CXC or RPI to give harsh, brittle, etc sound or are there no problems with that side now, (even if you still rate the vinyl side as better)?

I had a 840C Azure, I wasn't especially impressed with it. Bit soft and soggy. Preferred a budget Sony.

[Sherwood]

And do you find the Cambridge CXC or RPI to give harsh, brittle, etc sound or are there no problems with that side now, (even if you still rate the vinyl side as better)?

I had a 840C Azure, I wasn't especially impressed with it. Bit soft and soggy. Preferred a budget Sony.

The CXN and RPi sound pretty good now but of course I am playing FLAC or WAV files through them rather than CD discs directly. As I mentioned, for whatever reason, the FLAC rips and WAV files sound better to me.

Another advantage of FLAC is that I can bring my entire CD collection with me as hand luggage on mirrored 4 tb drives when I take up my next long term overseas assignment. Quite a saving as marine freight insurance has been escalating over the last two decades. At 4% of value that's an expensive business!

Geoff

Geoff

[Sherwood]

I have effectively dispensed with preamps on both my systems and would be reluctant to go back to using one. For vinyl I had TdP fit my EAR834P with a volume control at the time of purchase and that feeds directly into the Art Audio. For my digital system(s) I stream directly from either a Cambridge CXN or RPi with Digi Berry + directly into monoblocks.

On a related note, my Croft Super Micro is currently up for sale elsewhere on AoS!:goodbye:

[Macca]

The CXN and RPi sound pretty good now but of course I am playing FLAC or WAV files through them rather than CD discs directly. As I mentioned, for whatever reason, the FLAC rips and WAV files sound better to me.

Another advantage of FLAC is that I can bring my entire CD collection with me as hand luggage on mirrored 4 tb drives when I take up my next long term overseas assignment. Quite a saving as marine freight insurance has been escalating over the last two decades. At 4% of value that's an expensive business!

Geoff

Geoff

As I said, I suspect the improvement is nothing to do with the file being stored on a hard drive or on a polycarbonate disc. In fact I am pretty certain of that. People jump to the conclusion that a file is better than a cd because it is bit perfect, or is not being read in real time, or there is no need for error correction, or some other bollocks they have read in a magazine or on the net, whereas in reality all of these explanations are easily debunked. But because of this the other variables get ignored.

[Sherwood]

I would not claim to explain the difference only to perceive it!

[Yomanze]

File based audio doesn't need error correction like CD does. Very few CD players re-read on error, and apply error correction instead. As files don't need to work in real time, jitter tends to be lower too. Again, very few CD players buffer their signals.

[Macca]

File based audio doesn't need error correction like CD does. Very few CD players re-read on error, and apply error correction instead. As files don't need to work in real time, jitter tends to be lower too. Again, very few CD players buffer their signals.

Because of the way the whole system works error correction does not have any effect on the final signal unless it fails and you will then get an audible glitch, You won't get a slightly worse rendition of a violin.

Distortion from jitter is not going to be a factor, that problem was solved years prior to CD being launched. Even worst case it is fractions of a percent. You could make it worse but it would need to be deliberate. I know there are people who will argue otherwise but IMO Just another concept the marketing men caught on to.

There are so many other variables involved when moving from CD to files or streaming that are likely to have much more impact on the sound than lower jitter.

[Rothchild]

I'm not saying this is the answer since ascribing improvements/changes to the wrong thing is a major pitfall of this hobby. That is simply what I have observed to date. As a proponent of game theory I like to analyse systems and uncover how they work so as to more effectively exploit them. Hi-fi is possibly one of the hardest systems to crack, since there is so much bullshit around, plus even the people who design the stuff do not seem to be sure exactly what is happening.


Probably not for this thread, but I'd like to know more about how game theory works as a tool for analysing/understanding audio equipment if you were willing to put some notes together on it.

[Gazjam]

File based audio doesn't need error correction like CD does. Very few CD players re-read on error, and apply error correction instead. As files don't need to work in real time, jitter tends to be lower too. Again, very few CD players buffer their signals.

Aye,
Especially when fed by Ethernet.
Transfer protocol is important.

[Macca]

Probably not for this thread, but I'd like to know more about how game theory works as a tool for analysing/understanding audio equipment if you were willing to put some notes together on it.

I've been out of academia for a long time now and killed a lot of brain cells with Guinness but I suppose I could cobble something together so long as there's no rush. If you think it is nonsense I'm fine with that. I'm not even sure it can be applied to hi-fi, that's the experiment I am working on currently ;)

[Sherwood]

Probably not for this thread, but I'd like to know more about how game theory works as a tool for analysing/understanding audio equipment if you were willing to put some notes together on it.

Listener's Dilemma!:)

[Gazjam]

Rather be listening to music me'self! :)

[Rothchild]

Rather be listening to music me'self! :)

Ain't no one stoppin' you.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

But to compound the difficulty of hearing differences as I love a simple solution too to be suggested, are sorry to say, source impedances, cable types, attenuation methods the focus of my life for the last 7 years , let alone speakers. IMO power amps are the least problematic component.

As an example today I heard a Mcintosh valve amp into Spendors costing $20.000... it really was rubbish compared to my Quad 306's and JR149's all of $1200.00

So the whole chain has to be somehow be identified as Go Doubtful or No Go specification so a typical audiophile feels happy stepping out the door
or maybe the next room if online to find his or her best choice of component. The McIntosh being a valve design simply needed a high impedance speaker
like high impedance LS3/5a also made by Spencer and Dorothy, but this had not dawned on those trying to sell it.

This reply by Peter backs up my findings above, that people are wasting money on exotic equipment that sounds not as good than hifi costing sometimes 10 times less.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?49507-Power-amp-advice-opinions-needed&p=835747#post835747

It is a matter of buying the right combination that meets excellent audio standards - noting Peter and myself both use Quad power amps , and not getting carried away by needless hype.

[Gazjam]

Ain't no one stoppin' you.

Uhm...
thanks for that.

[Gazjam]

bit depth (16, 24 etc) surely?
Sorry Martin, I'll get me coat. :)

Regarding dynamic range and mastering, good insight in this video from a mastering engineers perspective.
6R0DSM1DLks



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.

[Gazjam]

And another from Bernie Grundman himself, he talks about audiophiles and common misconceptions about mastering and audio.

a9YN8KvxcBA

[the_doc735]

Aside from bragging rights and a box swap fix it seems unlikely, if you're already turning the treble down in the audible spectrum you probably don't need any more info beyond that. Perhaps you should look at the rest of your system and see if you can't come up with something that has a naturally more pleasing sound to you?

Interestingly the spec for the m-dac says it's 20Hz-20kHz (despite being able to decode higher sample rate files) the Hugo just doesn't publish its analogue frequency response. It's a relevant point to consider I think, just because the chip can decode and put put audio signals up to 192kHz is the analogue stage up to it too (and not just the dac output, the amp input and the speakers too)?

LOL ~ I am always looking for something naturally more pleasing to me! I wonder what the Hugo's analogue frequency response is? The amp is the puresound 2A3 with NOS valves and the speakers are Monopulse A; I don't know if these are "up to it" or not? Any one got any ideas please? Many thanks!

[Gazjam]

LOL ~ I am always looking for something naturally more pleasing to me! I wonder what the Hugo's analogue frequency response is? The amp is the puresound 2A3 with NOS valves and the speakers are Monopulse A; I don't know if these are "up to it" or not? Any one got any ideas please? Many thanks!

Your system is more than pretty decent I'd have thought?

[the_doc735]

Your system is more than pretty decent I'd have thought?

Well, yes certainly there are some fine individual components, away from the technical, scientific, & mathematical arguments on here, but instead in terms of "when the sound meets the ear - direct experience" ~ without a hifi Guru around I can't ever rule out what they would say about compatibility between the various elements concerned? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

[Macca]

? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

I used to think that too, not so sure now, Of course you can pay £10K for something that isn't remotely worth that kind of money. You can also pay £2K for something that used to be £10K new and get real value for money.

[Sherwood]

Well, yes certainly there are some fine individual components, away from the technical, scientific, & mathematical arguments on here, but instead in terms of "when the sound meets the ear - direct experience" ~ without a hifi Guru around I can't ever rule out what they would say about compatibility between the various elements concerned? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

Comes back to price/performance issue. Expenditure is always additive: a system with components costing 2k, 3k, and 4k costs 9k. Performance is not necessarily additive: a poorly matched system will perform less than the sum of its parts and vice versa. Performance/price ratios are rapidly subject to diminishing marginal returns so that a 10k system will not be twice as good as a 5k system (subjective measurement issues aside). I guess for most of us, the goal is to define our performance expectations and then decide how much we are willing/able to spend in achieving that level of performance. The real art is finding that combination of components that best meets those performance goals at a particular price point.

My primary (i.e. streaming) system costs significantly less than £5k. I think it would be difficult for me to improve upon this system within a 5k budget. I suspect that I would have to spend significantly more than 5k to achieve worthwhile improvements and for me that would not represent value for money.

All highly personal and subjective. As it should be!

Geoff

[the_doc735]

I used to think that too, not so sure now, Of course you can pay £10K for something that isn't remotely worth that kind of money. You can also pay £2K for something that used to be £10K new and get real value for money.

Oh yes! I agree that there are some real bargains to be had occasionally. That's how I got all my stuff in fact!

[Macca]

Oh yes! I agree that there are some real bargains to be had occasionally. That's how I got all my stuff in fact!

Likewise. All my kit was bought used except the stylus, phono stage and interconnects. Oh and the RCM.

No way could I afford to buy gear of that quality new, I just don't earn enough. I'm happy to have rich people's cast-offs, though :)

[the_doc735]

Comes back to price/performance issue. Expenditure is always additive: a system with components costing 2k, 3k, and 4k costs 9k. Performance is not necessarily additive: a poorly matched system will perform less than the sum of its parts and vice versa. Performance/price ratios are rapidly subject to diminishing marginal returns so that a 10k system will not be twice as good as a 5k system (subjective measurement issues aside). I guess for most of us, the goal is to define our performance expectations and then decide how much we are willing/able to spend in achieving that level of performance. The real art is finding that combination of components that best meets those performance goals at a particular price point.

My primary (i.e. streaming) system costs significantly less than £5k. I think it would be difficult for me to improve upon this system within a 5k budget. I suspect that I would have to spend significantly more than 5k to achieve worthwhile improvements and for me that would not represent value for money.

All highly personal and subjective. As it should be!

Geoff

"Performance/price ratios are rapidly subject to diminishing marginal returns so that a 10k system will not be twice as good as a 5k system", my point entirely Geoff. I agree with your entire statement though! Maybe I should go the other way and try some S.M.S.L?

[Sherwood]

"Performance/price ratios are rapidly subject to diminishing marginal returns so that a 10k system will not be twice as good as a 5k system", my point entirely Geoff. I agree with your entire statement though! Maybe I should go the other way and try some S.M.S.L?

I would go so far as to say the key challenge in the pursuit of audio nirvana today is to find the most cost-effective amp/speaker combo, at least for digital/streaming systems. The performance of even modestly priced streaming systems (e.g. an RPi with add-on audio boards at less than £100) is now so good that one needs to spend considerably more to get substantive improvements. The challenge for analogue systems is more complicated as good engineering cannot be achieved at low cost. I think many people start off with a short list of speakers or speaker types and then try to find an amp that is a good match. This was how I arrived at my current digital system after a little trial and error. In hindsight it might have saved me time and money if I had looked at the speaker/amp purchase with a greater concern for synergies from the outset.

Geoff

[the_doc735]

I'd love to compare say: The Chord Dave to a SMSL M9 DAC XMOS Optical Coaxial USB Asynchronous 768KHZ/32Bit DSD. Anyone got a dave? (to compare). This whole '384' business seems a bit strange when most audio files are 44.1/16 bit anyway! Even the Graphice EQ studio software only allows U to select 44/48, and it appears non of my gear runs at 32 bit, only 24! There is wasapi/asio DS for foobar but that won;t run through the EQ though.

Then there's the VB Cable software that allows the EQ Studio to work; that always seems to output at 44/16 as well (even though it will input at far higher ratio's)? Yes, the synergies should be a major consideration I think. My old NAD 3020 was excellent for £50! but the speakers weren't that good really.

People DON'T want to hear me or anyone else say: "The SMSL M9 is as good as the Chord Hugo/2Qute for example". If you base your buying on financial grounds i.e. more expensive MUST BE better - right? "BUT!" ~ the chord is GB manufactured whereas the SMSL is Chinese manufactured; the trade off is not in quality but in manufacturing costs! If the Chord was manufactured in China I dare say it would only cost a third of what it does in the UK? If you are a 'badge snob' then you have won the bragging rights with the Chord, it's the old BMW/Kia thing all over again. I may take the SMSL challenge, it's certainly cheap enough, be prepared for a shock verdict if I do!

[Rothchild]

Infinite sampling rate is really what you need - now what technology can do that, Analogue?:)

Interesting aside here (further to my previous comments on RIAA curves) is that in practical terms it seems that the Redbook spec was aligned with 'standard' vinyl production. I've started reading on RIAA (in the hope of building a phono pre with my engineer father) and found this:

The RIAA curve can also be broken into two sub-curves, which when one cascades into the other will define the complete RIAA curve. The RIAA curve nicely breaks into a shelving network (50Hz and 500Hz) and a low-pass filter (2122Hz). The two circuits below embody the desired functions.

http://www.beigebag.com/case_riaa_1.htm#riaa5

LPF at ~20kHz sounds somewhat familiar, right?

[JimC]

Interesting aside here (further to my previous comments on RIAA curves) is that in practical terms it seems that the Redbook spec was aligned with 'standard' vinyl production. I've started reading on RIAA (in the hope of building a phono pre with my engineer father) and found this:

The RIAA curve can also be broken into two sub-curves, which when one cascades into the other will define the complete RIAA curve. The RIAA curve nicely breaks into a shelving network (50Hz and 500Hz) and a low-pass filter (2122Hz). The two circuits below embody the desired functions.

http://www.beigebag.com/case_riaa_1.htm#riaa5

LPF at ~20kHz sounds somewhat familiar, right?

2122Hz is 2k (2.122k to be exact)though, not 20k.....?
Or am I missing your point?

Jim

[Rothchild]

2122Hz is 2k (2.122k to be exact)though, not 20k.....?
Or am I missing your point?

Jim

No, you're right. Sorry, a long and arduous weekend has caused me to add a digit that wasn't there! Off to bed now for me.

[m10]

Fascinating thread. Not very technical here (I feel I understand, but probably don't really). I have been reading interesting things about temporal resolution as a justification for higher sampling rates, and all the Bob Stuart/MQA stuff around pre-ringing in digital systems (caused by that steep roll-off) and how that can be tackled.

Regardless of the science - or whether it's just down to nice (re)mastering - I have been having a nice time with MQA with Tidal/Roon and a Meridian Explorer 2. I'm so pleased that the Explorer 2 has replaced my Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 permanently. Not for MQA, though - but for the way it has had me rediscovering my mostly CD-derived collection (with a smattering of MP3). The MQA stuff really is nice - the Maria Callas remasters, several lovely Karajan EMI albums and some lovely Joni Mitchell. And as it's not HD Tracks at £20/£25/£30 per album, I'm quite happy to use it and enjoy it.

[the_doc735]

Fascinating thread. Not very technical here (I feel I understand, but probably don't really). I have been reading interesting things about temporal resolution as a justification for higher sampling rates, and all the Bob Stuart/MQA stuff around pre-ringing in digital systems (caused by that steep roll-off) and how that can be tackled.

Regardless of the science - or whether it's just down to nice (re)mastering - I have been having a nice time with MQA with Tidal/Roon and a Meridian Explorer 2. I'm so pleased that the Explorer 2 has replaced my Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 permanently. Not for MQA, though - but for the way it has had me rediscovering my mostly CD-derived collection (with a smattering of MP3). The MQA stuff really is nice - the Maria Callas remasters, several lovely Karajan EMI albums and some lovely Joni Mitchell. And as it's not HD Tracks at £20/£25/£30 per album, I'm quite happy to use it and enjoy it.

The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region. 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important – simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?

The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!

However, 44.1 kHz sampling can be capable of accurately resolving transients by the use of digital filtering. Digital filtering can go some way towards improving resolution without the need for higher sampling rates. However in order to do this the filters need to have infinite long tap lengths. Currently all reconstruction filters have relatively short tap lengths – the largest commercial device is only about 256 taps. It is due to this short tap length and the filter algorithm employed that generates the transient timing errors. These errors turned out to be very audible. Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality – much smoother, more focused sound quality, with an incredibly deep and precise sound stage.

The initial experiments used variations on existing filter algorithms. Going from 1024 taps to 2048 taps gave a very big improvement in sound quality, and it was implying that almost infinite tap length filters were needed for the ultimate sound quality. At this stage, a new type of algorithm was developed – the WTA filter. This was designed to minimise transient timing errors from the outset, thereby reducing the need for extremely long tap lengths. The WTA algorithm was a success – a 256 tap WTA filter sounded better than all other conventional filters, even with 1024 taps. WTA filters still benefit from long tap lengths; there is a large difference going from 256 taps to 1024 taps.

ROB WATTS. REF: CHORD DAC/64.

[Macca]

The WTA filter algorithm has taken twenty years of research to develop. It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region. 768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important – simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?

The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!

However, 44.1 kHz sampling can be capable of accurately resolving transients by the use of digital filtering. Digital filtering can go some way towards improving resolution without the need for higher sampling rates. However in order to do this the filters need to have infinite long tap lengths. Currently all reconstruction filters have relatively short tap lengths – the largest commercial device is only about 256 taps. It is due to this short tap length and the filter algorithm employed that generates the transient timing errors. These errors turned out to be very audible. Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality – much smoother, more focused sound quality, with an incredibly deep and precise sound stage.

The initial experiments used variations on existing filter algorithms. Going from 1024 taps to 2048 taps gave a very big improvement in sound quality, and it was implying that almost infinite tap length filters were needed for the ultimate sound quality. At this stage, a new type of algorithm was developed – the WTA filter. This was designed to minimise transient timing errors from the outset, thereby reducing the need for extremely long tap lengths. The WTA algorithm was a success – a 256 tap WTA filter sounded better than all other conventional filters, even with 1024 taps. WTA filters still benefit from long tap lengths; there is a large difference going from 256 taps to 1024 taps.

ROB WATTS.

Marketing bollocks.

It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings Odd then that when all else is equal no-one is capable of distinguishing between a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 file in blind testing then.

transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this! There is nothing to back up this assertion. it is generally considered that humans are not capable of hearing such miniscule timing differences, and there is nothing to suggest that this can apply to music either. This is just made up on the spot.

Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality

Really? A massive improvement? How is this being quantified? What comparisons were done? No, no need to go into any detail, I'm sold.

Just made up, back of a fag packet nonsense. Might flog some DACS though.

[StanleyB]

Odd then that when all else is equal no-one is capable of distinguishing between a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 file in blind testing then.
More bollocks from you. The correct information is that those subjected to the music and equipment selected for the test were unable to distinguish between the two formats.
To hear the difference you need to play the type of music that is dynamic and rich in a variety of information within the track. Playing a bunch of tedious notes will sound the same at any bit level. You also need something better than an Amstrad setup. These rumoured test claims are more often than not stripped of any information on the music and equipment used.

I had to end my typing of the above abruptly due to a visitor at the door. So now back on track, I am now able to add the following to my comment:
When people do hear a difference, the first excuse that is offered against that is that the two formats were recorded differently, which is why a difference can be heard. The excuses sceptics come up with to debunk the possibility of hearing a difference are staggering.
One reason why I still listen to my CD collection going back to 1984 is because with improvements in DACs, noise levels in electronic components, and improved power supplies those old discs are slowly releasing additional information that could not be detected previously.

[Macca]

More bollocks from you. The correct information is that those subjected to the music and equipment selected for the test were unable to distinguish between the two formats.
To hear the difference you need to play the type of music that is dynamic and rich in a variety of information within the track. Playing a bunch of tedious notes will sound the same at any bit level. You also need something better than an Amstrad setup. These rumoured test claims are more often than not stripped of any information on the music and equipment used.

I had to end my typing of the above abruptly due to a visitor at the door. So now back on track, I am now able to add the following to my comment:
When people do hear a difference, the first excuse that is offered against that is that the two formats were recorded differently, which is why a difference can be heard. The excuses sceptics come up with to debunk the possibility of hearing a difference are staggering.
One reason why I still listen to my CD collection going back to 1984 is because with improvements in DACs, noise levels in electronic components, and improved power supplies those old discs are slowly releasing additional information that could not be detected previously.

No it isn't bollocks it is a fact. And tests have been done with real music, not random notes or tones. This is hardly surprising since the only thing 'hi rez' can possibly offer is to reproduce frequencies that are beyond the range of human hearing, no wonder it doesn't sound any different.

I agree with you about CD being improved by power supplies etc, this is where the effort should be concentrated, not on some giant confidence trick.

[Rothchild]

The transient stuff is just plain fishy.

Simple logical test, 1 / 20,000 = 0.00005

The timing difference between one peak (transient) of a 20kHz wave and the next is 0.00005 of a second (help me out here, as I've shown my arithmetic struggles sometime, that's 5 hundred thousands of a second? 5 pico seconds?), so whilst the human ear might be very sensitive to 'transients' they can all still be captured in a basic redbook recording.

[Gazjam]

My £0.02 worth,
Just some stuff to think about.

Historically,
Its been proven time and time again that flat-earthers saying current theory is the be all and end all and theres no point thinking otherwise have been proven wrong in time?
In this case, (and speaking from subjective experience and experimentation over many years) its self limiting behaviour IMO to say it all stops at 20k...and even 44.1K.

A question to think about?
Can the human brain be affected by frequencies higher than 20K?
Not Can you 'hear' it...but is it affected by it?
Is there definative research to prove its not?
And given that listening to music is a wholly Subjective experience (cos it is), will our musical enjoyment be affected?

As to the advantage of 'higher than Nyquist' frequencies....one word:
* Harmonics.
My ears, my experience 16/44.1 can be bettered but anything higher than 24/96 is just wasted 0's.

[Macca]

But vinyl only manages , absolute best case, about an extra 2Khz over CD. RTR, which is what a lot of recordings were made on, is best case 22 KHz. So not only will you not get the benefit of these extra harmonics on those mediums either,with an analogue recording they won't even be captured to begin with. With a digital recording you still need the mics to be capable of picking them up.

And what recordings did they use as the flagships for hi rez audio when it was launched? Old Rolling stones albums from the 1970s. Recorded on an RTR with mics that probably struggled to capture 20KHz. Of course they sounded better, they painstakingly re-mastered them to sound better. Better mastering I have no issue with. Trying to pretend these recordings sounded better due to the medium was a deliberate con.

[Gazjam]

We all pick our spot Martin, and no argument here with anything you said.

Have you never heard anything above 16/44 sound better?
Even on different systems?

Theres Sorcery going in with 'old' technology like valves...
Just when your talking about recording techniques and what they were recorded on, one of the most musical moments I've had with my system was at a get together at mine, when we put on a Duke Ellington LP Marco had bought that day in Glasgow.
All valve from the mics to the recording desk to mastering..sounded absolutely sublime and very 'in the room'.
Best sound of the day...and who the feck cares what sampling rate the Engineers used!

Some of the most engaging music I have is at 320k MP3 because of the mastering.

BUT....
(and a very big but)

In the modern world, I've various versions of the same album recordings, 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 yada yada...
and honestly, to me when it gets above 16/44 it just sounds better...particularly once it goes 24bit.
Not just in a wanky hifi bollocks way, but the intent of the 'song' is delivered better.

This threads being of interest to me, so been keeping an eye on it.
With Tidal's latest 24bit MQA releases it's been good to be able to do more direct comparisons and yup, 16/44's consistently beaten.

I think it being the subjective thing it is, with music reproduction I think you get to a point where its the 'intent' that matters more than the level of quality?
Definately a 'good enough' point, and I think it's a healthy point to hit as you can just enjoy the music and not sweat the small stuff. :)

[Sherwood]

My £0.02 worth,
Just some stuff to think about.

Historically,
Its been proven time and time again that flat-earthers saying current theory is the be all and end all and theres no point thinking otherwise have been proven wrong in time?
In this case, (and speaking from subjective experience and experimentation over many years) its self limiting behaviour IMO to say it all stops at 20k...and even 44.1K.

A question to think about?
Can the human brain be affected by frequencies higher than 20K?
Not Can you 'hear' it...but is it affected by it?
Is there definative research to prove its not?
And given that listening to music is a wholly Subjective experience (cos it is), will our musical enjoyment be affected?

As to the advantage of 'higher than Nyquist' frequencies....one word:
* Harmonics.
My ears, my experience 16/44.1 can be bettered but anything higher than 24/96 is just wasted 0's.

As I suggested earlier, many of the improvements attributed to HD files may be the result of frequencies just outside the standard 20-20k range or the effect of higher frequencies on that spectrum. Part of the improvement may be down to greater care and attention during the recording and mastering process. Whatever the reason, some people (myself included) perceive benefits to HD. I have been very impressed with the recordings made by Stockfish records (e.g. Allan Taylor), but would not know what the specific reasons for their normally high quality is.

Geoff

[Gazjam]

As I suggested earlier, many of the improvements attributed to HD files may be the result of frequencies just outside the standard 20-20k range or the effect of higher frequencies on that spectrum. Part of the improvement may be down to greater care and attention during the recording and mastering process. Whatever the reason, some people (myself included) perceive benefits to HD. I have been very impressed with the recordings made by Stockfish records (e.g. Allan Taylor), but would not know what the specific reasons for their normally high quality is.

Geoff

Me neither Geoff,
Too busy enjoying the benefits to ponder why tbh...
...Though I could take a semi-educated guess, but wheres the fun in that? :)

[Macca]

Not just in a wanky hifi bollocks way, but the intent of the 'song' is delivered better.


I'm probably more of a wanky hi fi bollox type than you though :)

I've no problem with 24/96 becoming a standard for playback. It takes any argument beyond doubt, if nothing else. But it is still pointless for any recording not made at that resolution. For anything else if you have the CD you effectively have a copy of the master. Of course it might be a crappy master but that's a different story.

[Sherwood]

I'm probably more of a wanky hi fi bollox type than you though :)

I've no problem with 24/96 becoming a standard for playback. It takes any argument beyond doubt, if nothing else. But it is still pointless for any recording not made at that resolution. For anything else if you have the CD you effectively have a copy of the master. Of course it might be a crappy master but that's a different story.

That's true. As my system has improved and resolution improved, I find that many of the albums I listen to on cd are on the margins of listenability. Its very disappointing as many of these albums carry specific memories or remind me of key times in my life. Yes, they may be masters in that they are lossless copies of the original recording, but that does not make them any easier to listen to.

Geoff

[the_doc735]

Marketing bollocks.

It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings Odd then that when all else is equal no-one is capable of distinguishing between a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 file in blind testing then.

transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this! There is nothing to back up this assertion. it is generally considered that humans are not capable of hearing such miniscule timing differences, and there is nothing to suggest that this can apply to music either. This is just made up on the spot.

Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality

Really? A massive improvement? How is this being quantified? What comparisons were done? No, no need to go into any detail, I'm sold.

Just made up, back of a fag packet nonsense. Might flog some DACS though.

So, was the CHORD 64 sold on the principal of Marketing bollocks? (the '64' being the subject matter in this case)...

[Gazjam]

I'm probably more of a wanky hi fi bollox type than you though :)

I've no problem with 24/96 becoming a standard for playback. It takes any argument beyond doubt, if nothing else. But it is still pointless for any recording not made at that resolution. For anything else if you have the CD you effectively have a copy of the master. Of course it might be a crappy master but that's a different story.

I hear ya.
Despite having different way's to do it I don't upsample digital in software for this very reason.

Having said that though, a 24bit relelease sounds better to these ears so I go with that, bearing in mind a lot of commercial recordings are downmixed to 16/44 for the distribution medium, but recorded in 24bit in the studio?
And this is where higher resolution at the recording stage makes sense to me...to capture as much of the performance at the time.

I spoke earlier about the early Ellingon recording being so musical, so the recording medium and techniques are potentially important, but there are albums that 'convey the message' just as well which were recorded on DAT, ADAT or even 4 track cassette?
It can just...depend.

Playing with Tidal and the 24bit MQA 'Master' versions of familiar albums, in hifi and musical intent terms they are just...'better'...so nowadays I dont sweat it and just enjoy the music.
Never black and white though, mastering is vital, though some of my favourite music is on 320k MP3, if theres a 24bit version of it I'll go with that as better.

I used to sweat this stuff, but I think digital bitdepth/samplerate isn't something to seriously hang your coat on?
It's just one of MANY aspects in the chain as to what hits your ears when you sit down to listen to your favourite music.

My ears my experience, anything over 24/96 (and certainly 384khz!) doesn't bring anything extra to the table and as Martin says, it can depend on how its recorded.
Personally I avoid upsampling at my side as I'd rather hear what the recording engineer put out.
CD Loudness wars/rack em up and make money notwithstanding, hearing your favourite album released in its NATIVE 24bit recording format and not downsampled, can truly be a real ear opener.

S'all good. :)

[the_doc735]

@ Macca
So, was the CHORD 64 sold on the principal of Marketing bollocks? (the '64' being the subject matter in this case)...
Indeed, are all CHord DACs sold on the principal of Marketing bollocks?

[Macca]

So, was the CHORD 64 sold on the principal of Marketing bollocks? (the '64' being the subject matter in this case)...

The press release that has been quoted a couple of times now is marketing bollocks as far as I am concerned. I've already said so, and explained why I think that.

[Macca]

That's true. As my system has improved and resolution improved, I find that many of the albums I listen to on cd are on the margins of listenability. Its very disappointing as many of these albums carry specific memories or remind me of key times in my life. Yes, they may be masters in that they are lossless copies of the original recording, but that does not make them any easier to listen to.

Geoff

Yes, hot mastering is a big issue. I don't have too many CDs that are afflicted bad enough to make them unlistenable, but then I rarely buy new releases and if buying an older album on cd I'll make an effort to get a version that has a respectable dynamic range. Just bought a couple of the Eagles albums on CD and went for the 1990s releases rather than the later ones for precisely that reason.

Buying a hi rez version should avoid this issue entirely, but not because it is hi rez. They could just as easily release a less compressed CD version. Since these are analogue recordings there can be no SQ benefit to be had from extended bandwidth in any case.

In general, though, I have found that as my system has improved, SQ from CD has improved also. I don't find compressed recordings to sound even worse than they did when my system was crappier, rather I find it easier to look past the compression and enjoy the recording.

[the_doc735]

The press release that has been quoted a couple of times now is marketing bollocks as far as I am concerned. I've already said so, and explained why I think that.

Thank you for your kind reply Martin. Would it be fair to say in your opinion that a company with such renowned quality products as CHORD don't need to resort to this type of marketing bollocks as their products speak for themselves without 'the hype' OR maybe the hype detracts from the sale'ability? Anyone invited to state their own opinion on this matter (please)....

[Macca]

Thank you for your kind reply Martin. Would it be fair to say in your opinion that a company with such renowned quality products as CHORD don't need to resort to this type of marketing bollocks as their products speak for themselves without 'the hype' OR maybe the hype detracts from the sale'ability? Anyone invited to state their own opinion on this matter (please)....

Marketing works, advertising works, which is why companies spend a lot of money on it. Would they sell as many DACS without it? No, of course not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise it for what it is and call it out when we see it.

Fact is even if you have the best product in the world it will only sell itself to a minority of the potential customers without the marketing men and the salesmen getting involved. It may not be 'the way things should be' but it is reality.

The particular product in question, at £7K or whatever, is way beyond my means. A lot of the people who do have the means to buy it will know nothing about how digital audio works. They are perhaps still unlikely to buy without an audition, but no matter how good the damn thing sounds they will still want the re-assurance of the bullshit marketing to get them as far as that audition and to convince them to sign on the dotted line.

As enthusiasts we should know a bit better, and as this is a hi-fi site open to the general public I think that there should be at least one person putting forward the point of view that I have done, for balance if nothing else. Folk can then make up their own minds having heard all the arguments.

[Sherwood]

Yes, hot mastering is a big issue. I don't have too many CDs that are afflicted bad enough to make them unlistenable, but then I rarely buy new releases and if buying an older album on cd I'll make an effort to get a version that has a respectable dynamic range. Just bought a couple of the Eagles albums on CD and went for the 1990s releases rather than the later ones for precisely that reason.

Buying a hi rez version should avoid this issue entirely, but not because it is hi rez. They could just as easily release a less compressed CD version. Since these are analogue recordings there can be no SQ benefit to be had from extended bandwidth in any case.

In general, though, I have found that as my system has improved, SQ from CD has improved also. I don't find compressed recordings to sound even worse than they did when my system was crappier, rather I find it easier to look past the compression and enjoy the recording.

When I was referring to "listenability" I was not primarily referring to squashed dynamics although that is irritating and akin to having a "loudness" switch broken in the on position. What really gets to me are those recordings where the sound is a muddled mess and where instruments (including the human voice) don't sound like they do in real life. A particular bugbear is non-percussive percussion! I have arrived at my present system setup precisely because of its resolution of detail and excellent reproduction of transients so it is frustrating when this is missing from a recording. A lot of stuff from the 80s falls into this category and not just the electro-synth stuff. How difficult can it be to record a limited number of instruments and voices so as to allow each to be heard in playback?

Geoff

[Macca]

I know what you mean, dull transients, bane of my life. I usually find digital recordings better in this regard but there are some top analogue recordings that do capture it all, the sort of late 1950s, early 1960s stuff Marco is always banging on about are good examples.

But that is recording and a whole different ballgame from replay. I just accept that recordings are not perfect and move on; for me the starting point is the recording I buy. I can't change what went before.

[Sherwood]

I know what you mean, dull transients, bane of my life. I usually find digital recordings better in this regard but there are some top analogue recordings that do capture it all, the sort of late 1950s, early 1960s stuff Marco is always banging on about are good examples.

But that is recording and a whole different ballgame from replay. I just accept that recordings are not perfect and move on; for me the starting point is the recording I buy. I can't change what went before.

I wish I could be more the "glass half full type" on this but I can't. The only way I can listen to a lot of this stuff is on the radio or in the car where my full attention is not devoted to listening.

Geoff

[Macca]

I wish I could be more the "glass half full type" on this but I can't. The only way I can listen to a lot of this stuff is on the radio or in the car where my full attention is not devoted to listening.

Geoff

Have you got examples of specific recordings? if you are talking about Classical music then I don't have a scooby about that. I'd always assumed classical recordings were consistently good.

I was listening the other night to a 'Best Of' Creedence Clearwater Revival. Not exactly showcase recordings to begin with and being one of those compilations you buy for a quid from a basket at a motorway service station it is way too compressed. I still enjoyed it immensely though.

[Macca]

Have you got examples of specific recordings? .

????

[Sherwood]

Have you got examples of specific recordings? if you are talking about Classical music then I don't have a scooby about that. I'd always assumed classical recordings were consistently good.

I was listening the other night to a 'Best Of' Creedence Clearwater Revival. Not exactly showcase recordings to begin with and being one of those compilations you buy for a quid from a basket at a motorway service station it is way too compressed. I still enjoyed it immensely though.

Will dig out a few when I get a minute or two and I can bear it! :(

[Henchard]

what is the point of DSD 384Khz.? When, the human ear is 20Hz - 20Khz? At best!!

Please enlighten me - thanx!

Sorry for coming late to this (and I haven't read the whole thread) but having just been involved in recording an album at 384Khz there is one simple answer; in that the higher resolution digital formats minimize quantization errors and quantization noise when editing, mixing, and mastering the recording.

Edit: Actually 352.8 kHz as the person below pointed out.

[JimC]

what is the point of DSD 384Khz.?

Also isn't it 'DXD' 384kHz? And I think it's 352.8kHz too ?!?!?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_eXtreme_Definition
http://www.stereophile.com/content/promates-worlds-first-dxd-download-store#9wzhTGf8PBDVwtLm.97
Developed for use in editing DSD programme material and found to sound quite nice in its own right.

DSD is usually up in the MHz I thought?

Jim.

P.S. Some recordings can be found here:-
https://www.promates.com/music-store/

[the_doc735]

Sorry for coming late to this (and I haven't read the whole thread) but having just been involved in recording an album at 384Khz there is one simple answer; in that the higher resolution digital formats minimize quantization errors and quantization noise when editing, mixing, and mastering the recording.

Edit: Actually 352.8 kHz as the person below pointed out.

Well done Sir!

Having been in the studio myself many years ago, I can see these advantages in mixing! "BUT!" ~ in the final commercial stereo mix down for the domestic market, surely 44/16 is ample for anyone's ears? I mean, that's still twice the 20/20K human hearing limit! I have tried the higher ratings and always come back to 44/16 in the end; all the higher rates do is give me ear ache. In the good old (analogue) vinyl ONLY days we didn't worry about hertz and bits, that only started with digital.

[Rothchild]

The transient stuff is just plain fishy.

Simple logical test, 1 / 20,000 = 0.00005

The timing difference between one peak (transient) of a 20kHz wave and the next is 0.00005 of a second (help me out here, as I've shown my arithmetic struggles sometime, that's 5 hundred thousands of a second? 5 pico seconds?), so whilst the human ear might be very sensitive to 'transients' they can all still be captured in a basic redbook recording.

So it turns out that my maths is wrong but that it doesn't matter a great deal, it turns out that, thanks to the amazingness of Sampling Theorum any signal (within the selected bandwidth of half the sample rate) is perfectly recreated - the line between 3 sample points only has one solution. The practical impulse response of 16/44.1 is 55 picoseconds.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31057-article-digital-vinyl-temporal-domain/?page=13

[the_doc735]

So it turns out that my maths is wrong but that it doesn't matter a great deal, it turns out that, thanks to the amazingness of Sampling Theorum any signal (within the selected bandwidth of half the sample rate) is perfectly recreated - the line between 3 sample points only has one solution. The practical impulse response of 16/44.1 is 55 picoseconds.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31057-article-digital-vinyl-temporal-domain/?page=13

I like to decide with my ears not a slide ruler or oscilloscope, don't understand the maths and physics much. LOL.

[walpurgis]

I like to decide with my ears not a slide ruler or oscilloscope

Ears are the best tool and the only things that tell you how the sound is. Hi-Fi equipment can measure very well, yet still not sound right.

[Gazjam]

Ears are the best tool and the only things that tell you how the sound is. Hi-Fi equipment can measure very well, yet still not sound right.

Absolutely.
Like red wine or a good malt, how do you measure that?

[Rothchild]

Absolutely.
Like red wine or a good malt, how do you measure that?

How might I measure the drink?

Using spectroscopy.

How might I measure your preferences?

Ask you.

With enough sample data and honest enough answers from you I'd probably start to be able to predict which ones you would like from their spectra.


As for the other comments re maths, not understanding something it doesn't make it not true.

[Macca]

Ears are the best tool and the only things that tell you how the sound is. Hi-Fi equipment can measure very well, yet still not sound right.

Suppose you go to a dealer and dem a system, play all sorts of tracks over an hour or so. You like it, buy it, take it home. After a while you realise you are avoiding playing some albums because they don't sound right. a bit hard, or rough, whatever.

You can't take it back, it isn't faulty, so you start upgrading from there, using the same process. But if you don't upgrade the thing that is causing the issue then you won't solve the problem. But you don't know what is causing the issue, so you go through ten sets of speakers when all along it was the amp.

Ears alone are not enough.

[the_doc735]

Ears are the best tool and the only things that tell you how the sound is. Hi-Fi equipment can measure very well, yet still not sound right.

Very true! I have had that scenario myself in the past! Lots of good gear that sounds terrible together!

[the_doc735]

Suppose you go to a dealer and dem a system, play all sorts of tracks over an hour or so. You like it, buy it, take it home. After a while you realise you are avoiding playing some albums because they don't sound right. a bit hard, or rough, whatever.

You can't take it back, it isn't faulty, so you start upgrading from there, using the same process. But if you don't upgrade the thing that is causing the issue then you won't solve the problem. But you don't know what is causing the issue, so you go through ten sets of speakers when all along it was the amp.

Ears alone are not enough.

Yes but, you still use your ears to demo 10 different amps. speakers, dacs, media sources. I doubt if I now have the best system for the money I;ve spent. If i HAD the total amount I spent so far at the start and went to several Hi-Fi shops I pretty certain they would recommend more compatible components than what I have chosen myself, but now I always need to demo first coz the stakes are getting serious! Can't see myself buying a system based upon a mathematical probability score.

[Gazjam]

What would spectroscopy actually measure, chemical composition?
Tells you zero about why people would like it.

And like measuring hifi equipment, your measurement analogy wouldnt provide anything near a 'universal' good/bad assessment for everyone, which is the argument hifi measurebators make, but only baseline data relating to how its made up.

And what would that data really tell you about how different people would enjoy it?
Absolutely nothing.

Wine, like music enjoyment and appreciation is a personal experience based on criteria set by ones own self.
someone telling you its good because 'X,Y,Z' is completely subjective.



How might I measure the drink?

Using spectroscopy.

How might I measure your preferences?

Ask you.

With enough sample data and honest enough answers from you I'd probably start to be able to predict which ones you would like from their spectra.


As for the other comments re maths, not understanding something it doesn't make it not true.

[Macca]

What would spectroscopy actually measure, chemical composition?
Tells you zero about why people would like it.

And like measuring hifi equipment, your measurement analogy wouldnt provide anything near a 'universal' good/bad assessment for everyone, which is the argument hifi measurebators make, but only baseline data relating to how its made up.

And what would that data really tell you about how different people would enjoy it?
Absolutely nothing.

Wine, like music enjoyment and appreciation is a personal experience based on criteria set by ones own self.
someone telling you its good because 'X,Y,Z' is completely subjective.

But you don't decide whether you like something. It isn't like, say, choosing between buying a car and leasing one.

I don't see why in principle you could not determine a correlation between an individual person's taste in wine or hi fi and the scientific measurements of such if you had enough data.

[Rothchild]

What would spectroscopy actually measure, chemical composition?
Tells you zero about why people would like it.

Yes spectroscopy tells you about the chemical composition. Agreed, I don't think I've made any such claims.


And like measuring hifi equipment, your measurement analogy wouldnt provide anything near a 'universal' good/bad assessment for everyone, which is the argument hifi measurebators make, but only baseline data relating to how its made up.

Agreed re 'universality', again I don't think I've made any such claims. I'll take your word for it re 'measurebators' as it's not an area of expertise for me. Maybe you intend it to be an insult? I'm not sure it's actually anything that contributes to the discussion at hand through, as its not something I see myself as nor something I believe you have the right to label me as.


And what would that data really tell you about how different people would enjoy it?
Absolutely nothing.

Hmm, I'm not sure anyone with experience of mass market research in product development would agree. Correlating real world data with human feedback is the basis of pretty much all modern marketing - if you don't believe me check out 'The Hidden Persuaders' by a chap called Vance Packard, written some time in the mid 50s. The 'why' (as you've observed above) is harder to ascertain, but it's not a problem because I don't really care what the reasons are for anybody else, as long as they're happy with their choices.


Wine, like music enjoyment and appreciation is a personal experience based on criteria set by ones own self.
someone telling you its good because 'X,Y,Z' is completely subjective.

Yup, but it doesn't mean that I can't find some features of wine (or music) that I like and use those features to help me find more of the stuff I like, rather than wasting my time at square one every time I'm presented with a choice - subjectivity doesn't compel one to inconsistancy does it?

If, having tried all the wine on the shelf, I decide I like ones that are 'fruity' (according to my own, subjective, opinion of what that means) I'll pick 'fruity' ones, if each time I find one I like for its 'fruityness' (subjectivly assessed) I put in in a spectroscope and realise there is a repeated feature in chemical make up of the ones I like I might assume that that contributed to what I was subjectively assessing to be fruityness? Indeed I could go one further and choose a wine that didn't have that chemical feature to see if it had or lacked the fruityness I sought to help calibrate my understanding. That understanding could help me have more of a good time and less of a bad time, yet you seem to want to argue that that is somehow a bad thing to want, or that even simply trying to achieve it makes me somehow 'wrong'?

And none of this has any bearing on your preferences or decision making strategies as to what wine you choose to drink (or music you listen to, or the platform you listen to it on) as (wonderfully) that's entirely your perogative.

[walpurgis]

Hmm. I'm wondering if this thread is approaching the end of its useful life.

[Macca]

Or actually getting interesting...

[the_doc735]

What would spectroscopy actually measure, chemical composition?
Tells you zero about why people would like it.

And like measuring hifi equipment, your measurement analogy wouldnt provide anything near a 'universal' good/bad assessment for everyone, which is the argument hifi measurebators make, but only baseline data relating to how its made up.

And what would that data really tell you about how different people would enjoy it?
Absolutely nothing.

Wine, like music enjoyment and appreciation is a personal experience based on criteria set by ones own self.
someone telling you its good because 'X,Y,Z' is completely subjective.

http://www.desibukbuk.com/forums/images/smilies/whathesaid.gif

I personally prefer bananas that aren't quite ripe. http://www.desibukbuk.com/forums/images/smilies/banana.gif

[walpurgis]

Or actually getting interesting...

:lolsign:

[Macca]

No I am serious. Marc's thinking on this mirrors mine. Although that will probably make him reconsider ;)

[Pharos]

In my formation my Father, who was a librarian, but thought he was so intellectual that he could alter speaker designers' intentions, created a mono system that sounded awful.

This has I am sure influenced my perception of sound as a formative experience, as do all our early experience and in all areas; it is not only formal education which 'educates' us.

We carry this with us everywhere we go and with varying abilities to adapt and correct for them, and they will affect to some degree the whole of our life futures.

The measured parameters serve only as a guide because they are well established as criteria for a good piece of equipment, but they do not define it entirely.

We then have to choose that which violates least our own particular genetically based sensibilities.

There was a war in South America many centuries ago in which two tribes fought because one liked brown bananas, and the other yellow ones, the difference only being that enzymes have turned starch into sugars more in the brown ones.

One tribe slaughtered the other; what a sensible race we are?

[walpurgis]

In my formation my Father, who was a librarian, but thought he was so intellectual that he could alter speaker designers' intentions, created a mono system that sounded awful.

Sounds like my father. He thought Hi-Fi was a nonsense idea, being a serious and stern WW2 electronics Wiz, it was a subjective principle that had no value to him. Trouble is, he definitely was an intellectual, but an indeflectible one.

[Jimbo]

http://www.desibukbuk.com/forums/images/smilies/whathesaid.gif

I personally prefer bananas that aren't quite ripe. http://www.desibukbuk.com/forums/images/smilies/banana.gif

What does a banana taste like? Food or wine might influence how we hear?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/heard-it-through-the-grapevine-can-music-really-change-the-taste-of-wine

[Gazjam]

Replying to your post Marc, but comments were meant more generally, not specifically addressing things you may or not have said.
No insult implied fella. :)



Yes spectroscopy tells you about the chemical composition. Agreed, I don't think I've made any such claims.



Agreed re 'universality', again I don't think I've made any such claims. I'll take your word for it re 'measurebators' as it's not an area of expertise for me. Maybe you intend it to be an insult? I'm not sure it's actually anything that contributes to the discussion at hand through, as its not something I see myself as nor something I believe you have the right to label me as.



Hmm, I'm not sure anyone with experience of mass market research in product development would agree. Correlating real world data with human feedback is the basis of pretty much all modern marketing - if you don't believe me check out 'The Hidden Persuaders' by a chap called Vance Packard, written some time in the mid 50s. The 'why' (as you've observed above) is harder to ascertain, but it's not a problem because I don't really care what the reasons are for anybody else, as long as they're happy with their choices.



Yup, but it doesn't mean that I can't find some features of wine (or music) that I like and use those features to help me find more of the stuff I like, rather than wasting my time at square one every time I'm presented with a choice - subjectivity doesn't compel one to inconsistancy does it?

If, having tried all the wine on the shelf, I decide I like ones that are 'fruity' (according to my own, subjective, opinion of what that means) I'll pick 'fruity' ones, if each time I find one I like for its 'fruityness' (subjectivly assessed) I put in in a spectroscope and realise there is a repeated feature in chemical make up of the ones I like I might assume that that contributed to what I was subjectively assessing to be fruityness? Indeed I could go one further and choose a wine that didn't have that chemical feature to see if it had or lacked the fruityness I sought to help calibrate my understanding. That understanding could help me have more of a good time and less of a bad time, yet you seem to want to argue that that is somehow a bad thing to want, or that even simply trying to achieve it makes me somehow 'wrong'?

And none of this has any bearing on your preferences or decision making strategies as to what wine you choose to drink (or music you listen to, or the platform you listen to it on) as (wonderfully) that's entirely your perogative.

[StanleyB]

What does a banana taste like? Food or wine might influence how we hear?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/heard-it-through-the-grapevine-can-music-really-change-the-taste-of-wine
It depends on which banana type you eat. I have tried several different varieties in my life.

[Rothchild]

People who touch, smell or look at fruit before they eat it make me sick!

Fruit is only about the taste and the only way to determine that is to taste it, durr!

What sort of idiot would waste their time using any other sensory apparatus or source of so called 'information' than their mouths to determine what the deal is with a piece of fruit?!

[StanleyB]

People who touch, smell or look at fruit before they eat it make me sick!

Fruit is only about the taste and the only way to determine that is to taste it, durr!

What sort of idiot would waste their time using any other sensory apparatus or source of so called 'information' than their mouths to determine what the deal is with a piece of fruit?!
With all those green picked fruits that have been artificially ripened before ending up on the supermarket shelves, it is very difficult to imagine how the smell of a fruit affects its taste. It is even possible to detect from the smell if some fruits are ripe enough to eat, or not. Mind you, some fruits have to be shaken, slightly squeezed, or tapped with a knuckle in order to find out if they are ripe enough to be eaten.

[Jimbo]

It depends on which banana type you eat. I have tried several different varieties in my life.

Hi Stan, how you doing? Are you still in touch with Adrian?

[Rothchild]

some fruits have to be shaken, slightly squeezed, or tapped with a knuckle in order to find out if they are ripe enough to be eaten.

The ripeness of a fruit is in the eating, anyone who tries to circumvent this is likely a 'fruitibator'

Special circles of hell also reserved for:

Walkers who use maps

Ornithologists who use any form of taxonomy, rather than just determining species on sight according to their own preference and naming conventions.

Astronomers who use telescopes

Chefs who use recipes and those poor souls who engage in the pointless 'holy war' of whether it's better to cook with fire, gas or electric heat, when we all know they take food further away from the source and the only real food is raw food

People who believe a 100watt lightbulb will be brighter than a 60watt light bulb, every time I need a new light bulb I buy both and assess for myself which is the brightest and use that one

:bulb:

[Rothchild]

Replying to your post Marc, but comments were meant more generally, not specifically addressing things you may or not have said.
No insult implied fella. :)

Cool, well, hopefully I've sufficiently addressed your general comments about how one might square off concerns about how to relate subjective judgement, objective observation/measurement and logic so that discussion may proceed? ;-)

[Light Dependant Resistor]

It depends on which banana type you eat. I have tried several different varieties in my life.

It is a misconception that banana's are fruit - they are actually a herb
If you have any skin issues or cuts and abraisons forget chemical creams etc - banana the inner part of
the skin is simply amazing. If it stings when applied, its doing some work leave it a few minutes
and reapply a bit later. I am sure the banana is a lot faster than 384Khz - just to bring back on topic - well sort of.

[struth]

True, it's a herbaceous plant, and not a "woody" tree plant, but it is also a fruit apparently

[Jimbo]

Bananas change from 70% starch to 70% sugar as they ripen. This explains why they are so much sweeter when they turn almost brown or spotty.

[Rothchild]

Can everyone stop objectifying bananas!

The nutritional and chemical composition of a banana has nothing to do with why I like them in cold custard.

I've subjectively assessed several bananas and in my opinion they are not herbs, they're actually fish. Your rigid, blinkered, adherence to taxonomy is limiting your ability to truly enjoy bananas at their real fundamental level.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/576780863079194624/eXLMAAV-.jpeg

[struth]

Oooh, nice pic... Bev will like it :lol: of course i will never look at a banana again.

[Jimbo]

None of the ladies in my office will eat bananas in front of me as they think they are rude!

[struth]

None of the ladies in my office will eat bananas in front of me as they think they are rude!

:D. Very prim and proper Jim. Slurping bananas should be done in privacy

[Macca]

Bananas change from 70% starch to 70% sugar as they ripen. This explains why they are so much sweeter when they turn almost brown or spotty.

I disagree - the percentage of change from starch to fructose has no bearing on how sweet the banana is, that can only be determined by tasting it, and will be dependent entirely on the individual since despite being of the exact same species we all have differently functioning taste buds.

There is no place for scientific analysis in the world of fruit. Fruit grown by scientists will always be inferior to fruit grown by non-scientists using purely intuitive methods.

[Jimbo]

I disagree - the percentage of change from starch to fructose has no bearing on how sweet the banana is, that can only be determined by tasting it, and will be dependent entirely on the individual since despite being of the exact same species we all have differently functioning taste buds.

There is no place for scientific analysis in the world of fruit. Fruit grown by scientists will always be inferior to fruit grown by non-scientists using purely intuitive methods.

Starch to sugar % is a fact not an opinion.:)

[Macca]

Starch to sugar % is a fact not an opinion.:)

it was a joke, not a serious post.

[struth]

Constipate you too unless basically brown as the starch sucks fluids from the digestive tract.

[Rothchild]

Starch to sugar % is a fact not an opinion.:)

Lol!

Next you're going to suggest there are aspects to the way that sound functions which, due to being measurable and repeatable, you'll want to call 'facts' and try to use them to develop some sort of useful understanding.

[Jimbo]

Lol!

Next you're going to suggest there are aspects to the way that sound functions which, due to being measurable and repeatable, you'll want to call 'facts' and try to use them to develop some sort of useful understanding.

Why should I do that Marc? I find your tone a little niggly.

[Rothchild]

Niggly might be a good word for it, not that I intend to rub you up the wrong way in anything but a good-humoured way, but i am trying to eek (niggle?) out an understanding of where and why folk draw a line between the 'facts' they are willing to accept affect perception (the sugar/starch content and the sweetness of a banana) and the ones they don't (the ability of digital sampling to accurately represent audio spectrum).

Given that a page or so ago you agreed with Gazjam, that using spectroscopy to analyse the chemical content of wine could say nothing about the how that wine might taste, it seemed like rather a turn for you to then argue against Macca's post, retorting the reason for a banana tasting the way that it did was because of a 'fact' about it's chemistry.

Now, it may be that I missed the irony in your response to an already ironic post, in which case I'm sorry, it doesn't however undermine the credibility of the notion that there is a sensible place between pure objectivity and pure subjectivity where physics and psychology/perception can co-exist and enable us to put together good hifi systems without wandering 'lost in the dark' or of never enjoying any music because we're more interested in a frequency graph.

[walpurgis]

It's all bananas! :mental:



:lolsign:

[the_doc735]

fantastic comments guys :eek:

384, fruit, wine and light bulbs! :stalks:

Tell me Mr.Einstein: Is 384KHz (sound wave) faster than a light bulb (light wave)? :scratch:

...did someone mention light? ...fiber optics Vs. coax Vs. USB Vs. Phono and its effect with regard to 384KHz? :bulb:

This could become one of the most: fascinating, informative, humorous, illuminating, good humored threads on A.O.S.! :clapclapclap:

...let it rip people! ...let it rip! ...enjoying every comment :)

:doh:

[Rothchild]

Just back to offer Jimbo a proper apology.

James, I'm sorry.

I looked back and realised that you had actually quoted the post by 'the doc' (in support of Gazjam) I was thinking of, so the post that I'd thought was yours was actually 'the docs' and I therefore mis-attributed an assertion you had not made.

[Rothchild]

fantastic comments guys :eek:

384, fruit, wine and light bulbs! :stalks:

Tell me Mr.Einstein: Is 384KHz (sound wave) faster than a light bulb (light wave)? :scratch:

:doh:

There are certain conditions where sound will move faster than light, through a brick wall for instance ;-)

The link I posted earlier points out that the 55picosecond transient resolution of the redbook standard equates to a lightspeed distance of less than 3cm, pretty quick.

[Bonky]

Starch is osmotically inert so won't have any effect on water flow into the gut. However, once it's hydrolysed by gut enzymes to its constituent components (based on glucose), then it will.


...nothing to do with hi-fi though...
Constipate you too unless basically brown as the starch sucks fluids from the digestive tract.

BW

R

[struth]

So it does then ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StanleyB]

Starch is osmotically inert so won't have any effect on water flow into the gut. However, once it's hydrolysed by gut enzymes to its constituent components (based on glucose), then it will.


...nothing to do with hi-fi though...

Isn't that the same as MQA and upsampling?

[Firebottle]

Love it Stan, best post yet :rfl:

[Rothchild]

Isn't that the same as MQA and upsampling?

Sort of, except we know what guts do and how they work without paying a licence

[Bonky]

Crap in...crap out?

R

[Jimbo]

Just back to offer Jimbo a proper apology.

James, I'm sorry.

I looked back and realised that you had actually quoted the post by 'the doc' (in support of Gazjam) I was thinking of, so the post that I'd thought was yours was actually 'the docs' and I therefore mis-attributed an assertion you had not made.

No problem Marc.

[Bonky]

So it does then ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, as it's no longer starch but maltose and glucose.

Let's drop it- not important unless you are taking a written exam in elementary biochemistry.

Rich

[Macca]

Let's drop it- not important unless you are taking a written exam in elementary biochemistry.

Rich

You could always just write it on your sleeve if that were to happen anyway.