High def/Low def

[magiccarpetride]

Spent better part of the weekend listening to as much high definition music as I could get my hands on (mostly 24/96 DVD-Audio rips to FLAC played through my Squeezebox Touch). Switched back to my CD rips (16/44.1 rips to AIFF) and experienced a huge shock: the CDs sound so scratchy and harsh and grainy and full of unpleasant glare!

It felt like switching from watching blu ray movies back to watching the same movies in VHS. Now, I've always thought (not really giving it much detailed study) that high definition music is just a bit marginally better than the CDs, and that the improvement is mostly detectable in the more realistic soundstage and spatial placement of the instruments/vocals. But this is an altogether different situation; this is the real difference between listening to the very realistic, soft, smooth and muscular sound and the difference of listening to a mere facsimile of that same sound. Like a harsh photocopy of an original artwork.

Is this also other people's experience? Could the increase in resolution truly affect the digital sound this much? Or was it that I was just in a special mood last night? (I'll retry this experiment later today)

[Reid Malenfant]

Alex, do the calculations ;)

2^16 = 65,536 permutations or if you like that is as many points on a waveform 16 bit can generate.

24 bit looks a tad better to say the least:- 2^24 = 16,777,216 permutations :eyebrows:

256 times more detailed than red book CD & that's before you take into account the wider bandwidth of 96Khz sampling.

No idea how the hell all that info is stored though :scratch: In theory you'd need 20+ Gb to hold a CDs worth of information. However from what i have read about 80% of red book CD is taken up with error correction information, taking that into account then an 80 minute CD will fit on a 4.7Gb DVD. Then adding the expanded bandwidth which will slightly more than double the information (if it happened to have significant information up to 40KHz+) it'll fit on a double layer DVD.

I'm pretty sure i have a few DVD audio discs here, just no chance to listen to them as i type, from what i have heard previously they do sound very good indeed & frankly it's not surprising ;)

[michaelhigh]

Spent better part of the weekend listening to as much high definition music as I could get my hands on (mostly 24/96 DVD-Audio rips to FLAC played through my Squeezebox Touch). Switched back to my CD rips (16/44.1 rips to AIFF) and experienced a huge shock: the CDs sound so scratchy and harsh and grainy and full of unpleasant glare!

It felt like switching from watching blu ray movies back to watching the same movies in VHS. Now, I've always thought (not really giving it much detailed study) that high definition music is just a bit marginally better than the CDs, and that the improvement is mostly detectable in the more realistic soundstage and spatial placement of the instruments/vocals. But this is an altogether different situation; this is the real difference between listening to the very realistic, soft, smooth and muscular sound and the difference of listening to a mere facsimile of that same sound. Like a harsh photocopy of an original artwork.

Is this also other people's experience? Could the increase in resolution truly affect the digital sound this much? Or was it that I was just in a special mood last night? (I'll retry this experiment later today)

I keep a regular rotation going so I don't get too inundated with the details, otherwise I'd throw away my 8-tracks! (hehe)... One day vinyl gets the prize for bit-perfect quality, then files, then there are days when anything will do. I'm easily entertained...:lol:

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Hmm, doesn't sound right to me ... I'm fairly sure my system is quite revealing, I have and listen to music up to 24/192 at 9000 odd Kbps ... I don't find the scratchy sound comes into play until I listen to music ripped from CDs in formats below 320kbps- sometimes at 320, but often that is fine, not quite a dynamic maybe... But not scratchy really! ... Flac from cd is fine ... In fact in some cases I have CDs that you would think were "high def" ... Have you ripped the CDs correctly? Flac files of CDs will only sound scratchy if the cd sounded scratchy!
You need a reference for perspective I think... Cd is perfectly capable of sounding fantastic, not scratchy at all, high Rez is usually better sounding... But that's because it has been recorded and produced with greater attention to detail due to it's target audience probably buying it for it's high rez nature.
Buy something like Nitin Sawney "broken skin" ... If that sounds scratchy then i would say the fault is in your system/method of ripping
A lot of CDs that sound scratchy sound that way because of poor attention to detail in their creation, not because of fault in the format it's self...

[DSJR]

You do need a reference - the original recording, and if the transfer is done right, even the early Sony PCM1630 is a pretty good A to D converter. certainly on Decca classical material, the CD is a good reflection of the source recording.

The whole point about hi-res is for the pro's who may need to do digital editing and other unmentionables with a margin for error, which in the early eighties wasn't there..

Once again, bad "domestic" speaker crossovers and crude tweeter implementations can magnify things out of all recognition.

[Vincent Kars]

Now, I've always thought (not really giving it much detailed study) that high definition music is just a bit marginally better than the CDs, and that the improvement is mostly detectable in the more realistic soundstage and spatial placement of the instruments/vocals.

Sounds reasonably to me.
The quality of a CD is high, any improvement should be a small refinement not a night and day difference.
16/24 is a nice example.
A bit is a bit by design (6 dB). 16 bits=6*16=96 dB dynamic range
24=6*24=144 dB dynamic range
The noise floor of your gear might be say 110 dB
Going from 16 to 24 will enable you to hear any detail between -96 dBFS and -110 dBFS.
Now -96 is already very soft…
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

Make me wonder if something has gone wrong with the ripping.
Re-ripping a couple of CDs in secure mode might be a first step

[Clive]

I have my doubts that the difference between ripping with the likes of EAC and simply copying a CD is significant. There have been endless discussions on this with no real conclusion. Strangely when I install software (programs) from CD they install correctly and run fine on my computer - without needing EAC to read the CD. I use EAC to RIP my CDs for tagging reasons.

[MartinT]

If your CDs sound harsh and grainy then there is something wrong with your replay chain. Are you actually playing the CDs or a rip thereof?

At their best, CDs can sound spectacularly good. SACDs and DVD-As sound even better and are up there with LP for natural presentation and micro-detail. Remember that CD was a 1984 digital format - limited, but the best that technology could economically decode at that time.

[Welder]

Hi Alex.

This doesn’t sound right to me either.
I think one really needs to compare the same track/album ripped/downloaded with the same app to the same format at differing resolutions.
To my ears a well re-mastered 16/44.1 is not far short of a standard 24/88.
The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.
Given most recording studios now use 24/88 as standard it shouldn’t be too hard to set up a valid comparison.
Possibly a controversial view but I don’t care much for AIFF, preferring WAV or Flac.
I understand people have had some excellent results ripping audio from DVD. It’s not something I’ve tried myself.

[AlanS]

Could the increase in resolution truly affect the digital sound this much? Or was it that I was just in a special mood last night? (I'll retry this experiment later today)

My money is on the special mood. What was the retry without the special mood like? Is it repeatable?

[magiccarpetride]

Hmm, doesn't sound right to me ... I'm fairly sure my system is quite revealing, I have and listen to music up to 24/192 at 9000 odd Kbps ... I don't find the scratchy sound comes into play until I listen to music ripped from CDs in formats below 320kbps- sometimes at 320, but often that is fine, not quite a dynamic maybe... But not scratchy really! ... Flac from cd is fine ... In fact in some cases I have CDs that you would think were "high def" ... Have you ripped the CDs correctly? Flac files of CDs will only sound scratchy if the cd sounded scratchy!
You need a reference for perspective I think... Cd is perfectly capable of sounding fantastic, not scratchy at all, high Rez is usually better sounding... But that's because it has been recorded and produced with greater attention to detail due to it's target audience probably buying it for it's high rez nature.
Buy something like Nitin Sawney "broken skin" ... If that sounds scratchy then i would say the fault is in your system/method of ripping
A lot of CDs that sound scratchy sound that way because of poor attention to detail in their creation, not because of fault in the format it's self...

I may have overdramatized my report by using the epithet 'scratchy'. No, my CD rips don't sound scratchy at all. They sound magnificent! It is only after I've been listening to the high definition FLACs for a while, and my ears get accustomed to that kind of a sound, that going back to the CD rips sound notably different.

Let me put it this way: high definition (24/96) FLACs sound soft; low definition FLACs/WAVs/AIFFs (16/44.1) sound hard. That's as qualitative a definition as I can give you.

I did some experimenting last night, switching back and forth, and quite frankly, even though the differences are extremely palpable, at this point I'm not exactly sure which format do I like better. I love the softness and the extra sweetness and the denseness of the sound those high def FLACs offer, but I also like the hardness and the muscle and the grunt that the CDs offer.

It's one of those things where it boils down to personal preferences and the mood swings. For example, Billy Cobham's "Spectrum" (a DVD-Audio rip in 24/96) contains such a sweet, soft overall sound, that it's right down infatuating (if I could, I would bathe in it all day long). It's simply irresistible.

However, when I switch back to the remastered "Spectrum" red book format, I immediately notice the much needed extra ooomph! that Billy is famous for on his drum kit. That ooomph! is somehow not present in the high def format, and I admit that I miss it sorely on the high def side. Go figure...

[magiccarpetride]

If your CDs sound harsh and grainy then there is something wrong with your replay chain. Are you actually playing the CDs or a rip thereof?

At their best, CDs can sound spectacularly good. SACDs and DVD-As sound even better and are up there with LP for natural presentation and micro-detail. Remember that CD was a 1984 digital format - limited, but the best that technology could economically decode at that time.

I agree with you that many of the CDs I've heard on my system sound spectacularly good. It is just that high definition format sounds every bit as good as a CD, but with the added touch that it brings extra denseness and silkiness and softness and warmth that CDs simply don't have.

The only downside to the high def format is that it tends to lack a bit of hardness and muscle in the presentation of music. That is, to my ears at least.

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex.

This doesn’t sound right to me either.
I think one really needs to compare the same track/album ripped/downloaded with the same app to the same format at differing resolutions.
To my ears a well re-mastered 16/44.1 is not far short of a standard 24/88.
The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.
Given most recording studios now use 24/88 as standard it shouldn’t be too hard to set up a valid comparison.
Possibly a controversial view but I don’t care much for AIFF, preferring WAV or Flac.
I understand people have had some excellent results ripping audio from DVD. It’s not something I’ve tried myself.

Hi John,

I wasn't talking about scientifically controlled comparison experiment. My thoughts are more revolving around general impressions. Even when comparing two different tracks from different authors etc., if one track is in red book CD format and the other is in the high def format, the overall sound of each track carries certain unmistakeable qualities by which it is easy to say which is which.

Overall, most of the high def tracks I've heard so far sound much warmer, softer, denser, more well rounded than the red book CD tracks. On the downside, the high def tracks appear to carry less guts, less muscle and less ooomph!

Right now, I'm not sure which of the two I'd prefer. I am secretly hoping that I'll go with the regular red book CD format, because that's the only available format for most of the music I love. It would be tragic if I were to side with the high def format, and than miss out on all the fantastic music that is only available on CDs.

[magiccarpetride]

My money is on the special mood. What was the retry without the special mood like? Is it repeatable?

Yes, it is repeatable. However, what's not repeatable is my preferences. I must admit that, much as I like the high def format, from what I've heard so far, I am sorely missing the sheer muscle that well crafted CD tracks seem to bring to the table (er, to my ears). I feel funny for saying this, but high def format sounds to me a bit less 'daring' than the CD format (high def oozes with good manners, while CDs now sound a bit reckless to me). Doesn't make any sense, I know, but being a blue collar audio enthusiast myself, I like when music sounds edgy and even slightly distorted. Reckless abandon is what I'm going for, I guess. When the sound gets too polished, too polite, it tends to get a bit boring and less engaging.

[Reid Malenfant]

Overall, most of the high def tracks I've heard so far sound much warmer, softer, denser, more well rounded than the red book CD tracks. On the downside, the high def tracks appear to carry less guts, less muscle and less ooomph!.
Very odd indeed, they should sound virtually the same but with improved detail & an extended treble that lacks any harshness.

I guess you'd say they have more "air" (help i can't breathe :eyebrows:), the bass should be just as powerful, i'd expect the mid & treble to be more detailed but with a cleaner sound (but only slightly as we are talking minute details that our ears aren't that good at picking up)...

:scratch:

[MartinT]

It is just that high definition format sounds every bit as good as a CD, but with the added touch that it brings extra denseness and silkiness and softness and warmth that CDs simply don't have.

The only downside to the high def format is that it tends to lack a bit of hardness and muscle in the presentation of music. That is, to my ears at least.

Interesting. I find that a good SACD or, especially, DVD-A, sounds more visceral and energetic than CD.

[gramofone]

I concur with the thread originator.

However (I have not read every post on this thread, so excuse me if the point has been made before), there are other variables involved when comparing Red Book vs. Hi-Res recordings.

The sometimes huge differences cannot be attributed merely to differences in sampling rate or bit depth. Red Book CD recordings have suffered immeasurably from the digital vandalism that is 'dynamic compression' (see Wiki Loudness Wars). This is particularly prevalent with popular music, but occurs generally.

Audiophile Hi-Res recordings are generally recorded on better equipment, and specifically without digital tampering to make the average level of the recording as loud as possible.

The combination of greater bit depth, faster sampling rates, better recording and less or no digital 'mastering', in combination can result in a listening experience that is completely liquid, amazing dynamics and scale in fact, shockingly real ... something you would never say about a CD recording.

Hi-Res rules!:guitar:

[The Vinyl Adventure]

My experience of high def is basically very easy to quantify ...
Where a well produced cd sounds good, the same album sounds fractionally more dynamic, with a lower noise flaw, a touch more detail, or at least the details seem more separate from the rest of the detail - sound are easier to pin point shall we say, and the overall presentation as a greater feeling of ease and naturalness. That's about it ... There in my experience is no change to how warm music sounds ... But I guess we have very different systems!
It is odd that you are experiencing such differences... Have you got the squeezebox set up right?it sound as though something is effecting the way it is playing music

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Actually, maybe try comapring fleetwood mac rumours hires with cd ... My thoughts above are based on that comparison ... That might rule out anything else being at play...

[Ali Tait]

I find the most noticeable difference is in the depth of the sound stage-in the well recorded examples at least.

[MartinT]

Actually, maybe try comapring fleetwood mac rumours hires with cd

That DVD-A is particularly revealing, warts and all. For instance, the backing vocals in the early section of The Chain sound processed and it is easy to hear how the mix has been manipulated in the hi-res version. Then when the bass guitar comes in (the famous GP tune), the hi-res version leaves the CD standing for grunt and impact.

[gramofone]

For me listening to Sophie Milman's Beautiful Love or I Can't Make You Love Me which I downloaded from HDTracks, are the most natural/ real listening experience I have ever witnessed before.

No digital nastiness, no artificial warmth, no constricted dynamics, no surface noise, instantaneous dynamics, natural scale, intimacy ... completely indistinguishable from the real thing (if you have speakers that are up to the job at hand).

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Giz a link Malcolm :)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Got it, downloaded, now bloody asset upnp is taking ages doing some sort of rescan and won't let ne play anything through the player... Typical!

[gramofone]

Hamish

When you get it working, let me know what you think ...

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Yeah, pretty good, unfortunately at the moment it does quite a lot to highlight the curent need for new valves in my pre amp, as like much else it sounds a touch warm and lacking in sparkle... ... Still, I have been meaning to sign up to that place for ages...

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex.

This doesn’t sound right to me either.
I think one really needs to compare the same track/album ripped/downloaded with the same app to the same format at differing resolutions.
To my ears a well re-mastered 16/44.1 is not far short of a standard 24/88.
The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.
Given most recording studios now use 24/88 as standard it shouldn’t be too hard to set up a valid comparison.
Possibly a controversial view but I don’t care much for AIFF, preferring WAV or Flac.
I understand people have had some excellent results ripping audio from DVD. It’s not something I’ve tried myself.

Let's cut the theoretical chickenshit and look into the horse's mouth itself, as it were. What I have here is two formats of the same track -- one in your standard red book format (a regular CD, 16-bit/44.1 kHz sampling rate), the other in the newfangled high resolution/high definition format (24-bit/96 kHz sampling rate):

Red book CD: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7438755/02%20Doralice.flac

High definition: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7438755/02%20Doralice%2024-bit%2096kHz.flac

If you happen to have a sufficiently resolving audio system capable of natively playing the 24-bit/96 kHz format without downsampling, and if you, after hearing the above two versions of the same track, come back to me and tell me that there are no significant differences in terms of the sound quality between the two, I would seriously suggest you go and see an ear doctor. Your ears must be severely plugged or quite dysfunctional if you're unable to detect the glaring differences.

The first thing you will have noticed once you download the above tracks is that the high definition FLAC is four times larger than the FLAC ripped from the CD. That in itself should give you a good enough indication of how much more music is stored in the hi-rez format.

But, as I said, let's not listen with our eyes and with our intellect. Let your ears guide you. I promise you, you'll be shocked and enthralled at how much better the hi-rez music sounds.

[DSJR]

Four times as much music? I think not, with respect..

[Reid Malenfant]

Please explain how a 24/96 rip is only 4 times the size of a 16/44 :scratch:

You got me well confused, you don't have more than one heart & pilot a TARDIS do you?

[magiccarpetride]

Please explain how a 24/96 rip is only 4 times the size of a 16/44 :scratch:

You got me well confused, you don't have more than one heart & pilot a TARDIS do you?

I don't explain them, I just listen to them.

[Reid Malenfant]

I don't explain them, I just listen to them.
:lolsign: Ok, fair enough. In all honesty though i'd expect a file size at least 100 times bigger for 24 bit & that's at 44KHz sampling ;)

Something isn't quite right somewhere :scratch:

[magiccarpetride]

Four times as much music? I think not, with respect..

What is it that makes you think that way?

[Welder]

Alex.

What I wrote was “The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.”

Come on mate, that’s hardly controversial and I think, absolutely fair.
I’m not deaf either, honest ;)

I’ve done the hi res bit. My current set up will only play 24/88 at max but I’ve heard comparisons between 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 on what if I detailed here, I think, you would admit is a more than competent system no matter what you may think of the quality of my current setup :ner:

So, for the sake of politeness and out of a certain amount of interest I downloaded your samples. Thank you :)

So, yes there are significant differences, but no, they’re not “night and day” differences.
It’s your “night and day” (completely different, as in not recognizable as the same) difference description I take issue with, not that there is an audible difference.
I’m not going to argue with you about what percentage of the file size contributes to audible sound; you can read about the maths and physics involved elsewhere.

What I take issue with be it from you, or anyone else is, the over the top and often misleading terminology/phraseology used for describing audio, be it a new product or some particular tweak.
There is only so much that can be done in sound reproduction for a given medium and the “average” hi fidelity replay system.
Yes certainly different products can give a different sound but to attempt to dismiss those who take a slightly more rational approach to their assessment and description of such differences as deaf, or not having equipment of sufficient resolving quality to appreciate the vast changes in sound you initially described in your original post is churlish to say the least.

I will one day find the original post and reproduce it here. A contributor to another forum who it seems has what most I think would accept as a decent Hi Fi replaced a Dac Magic which he used as a temporary measure while he auditioned his final choice Dac. He eventually bought a Weis 202, or it might have been the Minerva. I asked him if he could estimate the improvement in sound quality he heard between the Dac magic and the Weiss. His answer was maybe 1 or 2 percent. Now that is very much in keeping with my own experiences listening to hi end audio equipment, the percentage increase in sound quality from a competently built midrange product to the so called high end is small, albeit significant.
The differences the “average” Hi Fi can reveal between redbook and 24/96 also fall into the significant but not “night and day” difference bracket.
What is more interesting is the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 that some people wax lyrical about are in fact negligible unless listening with extremely high bandwidth amplification and speakers capable of reproducing harmonics in the 30Khz and above range.

[magiccarpetride]

Alex.

What I wrote was “The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.”

Come on mate, that’s hardly controversial and I think, absolutely fair.
I’m not deaf either, honest ;)

I’ve done the hi res bit. My current set up will only play 24/88 at max but I’ve heard comparisons between 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 on what if I detailed here, I think, you would admit is a more than competent system no matter what you may think of the quality of my current setup :ner:

So, for the sake of politeness and out of a certain amount of interest I downloaded your samples. Thank you :)

So, yes there are significant differences, but no, they’re not “night and day” differences.
It’s your “night and day” (completely different, as in not recognizable as the same) difference description I take issue with, not that there is an audible difference.
I’m not going to argue with you about what percentage of the file size contributes to audible sound; you can read about the maths and physics involved elsewhere.

What I take issue with be it from you, or anyone else is, the over the top and often misleading terminology/phraseology used for describing audio, be it a new product or some particular tweak.
There is only so much that can be done in sound reproduction for a given medium and the “average” hi fidelity replay system.
Yes certainly different products can give a different sound but to attempt to dismiss those who take a slightly more rational approach to their assessment and description of such differences as deaf, or not having equipment of sufficient resolving quality to appreciate the vast changes in sound you initially described in your original post is churlish to say the least.

I will one day find the original post and reproduce it here. A contributor to another forum who it seems has what most I think would accept as a decent Hi Fi replaced a Dac Magic which he used as a temporary measure while he auditioned his final choice Dac. He eventually bought a Weis 202, or it might have been the Minerva. I asked him if he could estimate the improvement in sound quality he heard between the Dac magic and the Weiss. His answer was maybe 1 or 2 percent. Now that is very much in keeping with my own experiences listening to hi end audio equipment, the percentage increase in sound quality from a competently built midrange product to the so called high end is small, albeit significant.
The differences the “average” Hi Fi can reveal between redbook and 24/96 also fall into the significant but not “night and day” difference bracket.
What is more interesting is the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 that some people wax lyrical about are in fact negligible unless listening with extremely high bandwidth amplification and speakers capable of reproducing harmonics in the 30Khz and above range.

John,

I was using colorful language in the attempt to communicate my own subjective experiences. Of course, I can quite easily get a few of my close friends in a room and play these tracks to them back to back, and chances are they wouldn't be able to hear any differences. Perhaps they'd even get mad at me for wasting their precious time forcing them to listen to the exact same song twice in a row, time that could've been more wisely spent at the local bar. But that again does not prove, nor does it disprove, anything.

On the other hand, I just had a pleasure to host two of my old friends last night, who were indeed bowled over after hearing these two versions of the track, back to back. They indeed thought that it was a night-and-day difference. Again, that incident is not able to prove nor disprove anything.

We're talking individual preferences here. Some people prefer to drink soft, smooth and well rounded wines, others prefer rough at the edges, lotsa tannins brands. To each his own.

[michaelhigh]

Alex.

What I wrote was “The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.”

Come on mate, that’s hardly controversial and I think, absolutely fair.
I’m not deaf either, honest ;)

I’ve done the hi res bit. My current set up will only play 24/88 at max but I’ve heard comparisons between 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 on what if I detailed here, I think, you would admit is a more than competent system no matter what you may think of the quality of my current setup :ner:

So, for the sake of politeness and out of a certain amount of interest I downloaded your samples. Thank you :)

So, yes there are significant differences, but no, they’re not “night and day” differences.
It’s your “night and day” (completely different, as in not recognizable as the same) difference description I take issue with, not that there is an audible difference.
I’m not going to argue with you about what percentage of the file size contributes to audible sound; you can read about the maths and physics involved elsewhere.

What I take issue with be it from you, or anyone else is, the over the top and often misleading terminology/phraseology used for describing audio, be it a new product or some particular tweak.
There is only so much that can be done in sound reproduction for a given medium and the “average” hi fidelity replay system.
Yes certainly different products can give a different sound but to attempt to dismiss those who take a slightly more rational approach to their assessment and description of such differences as deaf, or not having equipment of sufficient resolving quality to appreciate the vast changes in sound you initially described in your original post is churlish to say the least.

I will one day find the original post and reproduce it here. A contributor to another forum who it seems has what most I think would accept as a decent Hi Fi replaced a Dac Magic which he used as a temporary measure while he auditioned his final choice Dac. He eventually bought a Weis 202, or it might have been the Minerva. I asked him if he could estimate the improvement in sound quality he heard between the Dac magic and the Weiss. His answer was maybe 1 or 2 percent. Now that is very much in keeping with my own experiences listening to hi end audio equipment, the percentage increase in sound quality from a competently built midrange product to the so called high end is small, albeit significant.
The differences the “average” Hi Fi can reveal between redbook and 24/96 also fall into the significant but not “night and day” difference bracket.
What is more interesting is the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 that some people wax lyrical about are in fact negligible unless listening with extremely high bandwidth amplification and speakers capable of reproducing harmonics in the 30Khz and above range.

It's called exuberance, enthusiasm, any term that denotes excitement, albeit excessive or not.

[gramofone]

Alex,

Don't worry you are not going mad, I have heard exactly what you did in a completely different space/ time coordinate.

Hi-Res can sound completely indistinguishable from the real thing, if your gear (particularly loudspeakers) are up to it. I certainly never heard this visceral quality on any other format.

I can't relate to this black & white/ day & night thing at all. Hi-Res can sound real, nothing I have listened to before now (vinyl, CD, 8-track tape, reel-to-reel) could ever have convinced me that what I was listening to was real.

But as I said, don't get bogged down by the technicalities of file sizes and sampling rates, and bit-depth. Much of the goodness of Hi-Res comes from the care and equipment used in the recording process. Chesky Records make good recordings and it is this mostly this care that you are hearing, honestly reproduced.

Check out the Sophie Milman recordings I referred to in this thread. This is where I heard what you heard.

[Welder]

Alex…..and anyone else interested in file based audio and CD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Okay, there’s a bit of maths involved. But it’s well worth making an attempt at understanding the theory because it has underpinned digital audio for a great many years.

A slightly more readable explanation but with slightly more “interpretation”
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=AAt&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&&sa=X&ei=kZLITIvEL-SX4gbu1_TlBg&ved=0CBgQBSgA&q=dan+lavry+sampling+theory&spell=1

I realize one can’t argue with what people say they can hear and we all have differing perceptions of sound. But, there comes a point where one can say “you just can’t hear that with the equipment you have” or because of the way it was recorded.
It’s quite interesting to run some of the so called Hi Res downloads through a frequency analyzer.
Even something as basic as that available with Audigy can be quite revealing about the content of a download or CD. I discovered an mp3 burn to a CD being sold as redbook using an analyzer. I’ve also downloaded so described hi res files with nothing above 16kHz.

As for some hi res being indistinguishable from live sound……..well not that I’ve ever heard but within a restricted frequency range it might be possible. It’s possible in a full orchestra concert for example to be subjected to frequencies below 10Hz and into the ultra sound regions. It’s going to be some interesting kit that a) manages to record these frequencies with degradation and b) the kit that’s going to replay them; not to mention you’ll need a listening room the same size as the concert hall…..but, never mind eh ;)

[magiccarpetride]

Alex…..and anyone else interested in file based audio and CD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Okay, there’s a bit of maths involved. But it’s well worth making an attempt at understanding the theory because it has underpinned digital audio for a great many years.

A slightly more readable explanation but with slightly more “interpretation”
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=AAt&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&&sa=X&ei=kZLITIvEL-SX4gbu1_TlBg&ved=0CBgQBSgA&q=dan+lavry+sampling+theory&spell=1

I realize one can’t argue with what people say they can hear and we all have differing perceptions of sound. But, there comes a point where one can say “you just can’t hear that with the equipment you have” or because of the way it was recorded.
It’s quite interesting to run some of the so called Hi Res downloads through a frequency analyzer.
Even something as basic as that available with Audigy can be quite revealing about the content of a download or CD. I discovered an mp3 burn to a CD being sold as redbook using an analyzer. I’ve also downloaded so described hi res files with nothing above 16kHz.

As for some hi res being indistinguishable from live sound……..well not that I’ve ever heard but within a restricted frequency range it might be possible. It’s possible in a full orchestra concert for example to be subjected to frequencies below 10Hz and into the ultra sound regions. It’s going to be some interesting kit that a) manages to record these frequencies with degradation and b) the kit that’s going to replay them; not to mention you’ll need a listening room the same size as the concert hall…..but, never mind eh ;)

One tacit assumption that never seems to be examined in all these discussions is that we seem convinced that we are measuring all and everything that could possibly be measured. I'm not exactly sure where is that particular brand of arrogance coming from (must be a military thing), but I have a hunch that it's far from being the truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes, we can measure and mathematically correlate certain phenomena that appear collateral or coincidental to our experience of listening to music reproduction, but the net we're casting in the hopes that we'll catch all the fish in that ocean comes with a lot of huge holes and loopholes. That fact, however, gets overlooked in a very cavalier manner. I call it our collective blind spot.

May I propose here that our sense organs, coupled with our brains, are far more sophisticated, subtle and superior to any measuring apparatus known to modern man? If this proposition of mine gets accepted, then it follows that we're merely wasting our time using the measuring instruments when evaluating our listening experiences.

Off the soapbox...

[Vincent Kars]

If we talk file size 15240643 – 60561041 the ratio is almost 4.
This is of course a senseless comparison as the compression is 48 % - 37%
If we talk bitrate: 1411 – 4608 the ratio is 3.2

Uncompressed we expect
16 * 44100 * 2 = 1411200 bits/s
24 * 96000 * 2 = 4608000 bits/s


However, I do think these numbers are meaningless.
The question is how are these file created.
Recently there was some stir about 16/44 and 24/96 (or 88 I forgot) files offered for download by NAIM.
The 16/44 sounded worse.
Pretty soon they found out that the 16/44 where down sampled rather badly.
Without knowing how these files are created the question will always be if the differences are due to the file format or due to the artifacts of the SRC

[DSJR]

What is it that makes you think that way?

Because I've heard CD, or certainly rips of CD material, sound all but identical to the original source material. Higher res of older material usually involves some further tweaking to make it sound better I reckon and I feel it's not fair to compare commercially available stuff as it almost certainly would have been tweaked to make it "different. Indeed, there's a company selling hi-res files that were just standard red-book by accident and a supposedly well known reviewer in the US thought they were wonderful - apparently.

New recordings that sound great are usually well recorded to start with and should sound good whatever the medium they're presented on. I'll happily keep an open mind, but I remain to be convinced, as my current CD player definitely has something of the current top end machines about it still - a walk-in soundstage and absolutely no digital artifacts at all...

[Vincent Kars]

I’ve also downloaded so described hi res files with nothing above 16kHz.

Not uncommon I'm afraid: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=72939

[Welder]

Alex
Sounds okay if you say it fast enough mate ;)

But no, let’s try to be rational and reasonable and take both methods into consideration.

“May I propose here that our sense organs, coupled with our brains, are far more sophisticated, subtle and superior to any measuring apparatus known to modern man? If this proposition of mine gets accepted, then it follows that we're merely wasting our time using the measuring instruments when evaluating our listening experiences.”
The first bit is fine, so lets use our brains a bit along with our senses :eyebrows:

[MartinT]

The recording and mastering are king. There's no doubt in my mind that a carefully cratfed CD can sound sublime and very realistic.

Conversely, you cannot do anything with poor mastering. There is no remastering engineer on Earth who is going to be able to make, for example, Coldplay's X&Y sound anything other than utter shite.

[magiccarpetride]

Alex
Sounds okay if you say it fast enough mate ;)

But no, let’s try to be rational and reasonable and take both methods into consideration.

“May I propose here that our sense organs, coupled with our brains, are far more sophisticated, subtle and superior to any measuring apparatus known to modern man? If this proposition of mine gets accepted, then it follows that we're merely wasting our time using the measuring instruments when evaluating our listening experiences.”
The first bit is fine, so lets use our brains a bit along with our senses :eyebrows:

OK, I see where this is going: you'd like to live a long life but at the same time not get old. Is that it?

[magiccarpetride]

The recording and mastering are king. There's no doubt in my mind that a carefully cratfed CD can sound sublime and very realistic.

Don't matter how brilliant recording and mastering may be, if the final product is delivered as a shitty 56 Kbps mp3, it's gonna sound horrendous. The medium IS the message!


Conversely, you cannot do anything with poor mastering. There is no remastering engineer on Earth who is going to be able to make, for example, Coldplay's X&Y sound anything other than utter shite.

Amen. you've said it, man.

[Welder]

Well no, not that either Alex ;)
I suppose if one just listens to music and has no other interest in Hi Fi then I suppose one could dispense with any measuring :scratch:
But, take the case of the CD I purchased only to find I had an mp3 burn.
The CD was Consolers of the Lonely by the Raconteurs. It won a recording award so naturally I was expecting it to sound a bit above average.
If I hadn’t measured the frequency response I would have a) dismissed those who had found the recording to be exceptional as partial deaf and b) missed out on a very well crafted and recorded album because the replay quality was well below the standard I have come to find acceptable to listen to.

For me at least, if I build or mod, I measure first and make the final adjustments through listening; if I’m listening and I perceive something as not right then I measure.

I suppose a lot depends on the type of mind you have, if its an enquiring mind then it seems sensible to use all the tools at ones disposal to attempt to establish some frame of reference :)

[magiccarpetride]

Well no, not that either Alex ;)
I suppose if one just listens to music and has no other interest in Hi Fi then I suppose one could dispense with any measuring :scratch:
But, take the case of the CD I purchased only to find I had an mp3 burn.
The CD was Consolers of the Lonely by the Raconteurs. It won a recording award so naturally I was expecting it to sound a bit above average.
If I hadn’t measured the frequency response I would have a) dismissed those who had found the recording to be exceptional as partial deaf and b) missed out on a very well crafted and recorded album because the replay quality was well below the standard I have come to find acceptable to listen to.

For me at least, if I build or mod, I measure first and make the final adjustments through listening; if I’m listening and I perceive something as not right then I measure.

I suppose a lot depends on the type of mind you have, if its an enquiring mind then it seems sensible to use all the tools at ones disposal to attempt to establish some frame of reference :)

There is no measuring tool in the entire universe that can come even close to the power and precision of your own brain/sense organs combo. Why are you intent on using inferior tools which will give you only half-truths when your own organism can tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[Welder]

Well Alex you’re wrong. There are a great many measuring tools that are more accurate than any combination of my brain and body.
A frequency analyzer can show me frequencies that I can’t even hear.
A micrometer can measure to thousands of a millimeter which I can’t even see.
We didn’t discover electrons using our eyes.
Certain surgical procedures are carried out with far greater accuracy by robotics.

I take it you live in a world with no technology? ;)

Seriously Alex, have a look at what you’ve written, they're not the writings of a rational person.
Perhaps you’ve missed your time slot in life and might have been better off being a prophet of the one true god back in the dark ages somewhere :rolleyes:……….of course, you would have to leave your Touch and all the rest of the technology that was developed through measurement and reason behind, but that shouldn’t be a problem for a really dedicated zealot :)

Anyway something tells me further discussion on this topic is pointless.
What really matters is you seem happy in your world of delusion and as far as I know quite harmless.

Oh, btw, there is no truth :eek:

[AlanS]

There is no measuring tool in the entire universe that can come even close to the power and precision of your own brain/sense organs combo. Why are you intent on using inferior tools which will give you only half-truths when your own organism can tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Why dont you preach that to all the audio designers and manufacturers? The night and day truth or the moderately better truth (2 different opinions/choice of words).

[magiccarpetride]

Well Alex you’re wrong. There are a great many measuring tools that are more accurate than any combination of my brain and body.
A frequency analyzer can show me frequencies that I can’t even hear.
A micrometer can measure to thousands of a millimeter which I can’t even see.
We didn’t discover electrons using our eyes.
Certain surgical procedures are carried out with far greater accuracy by robotics.

I take it you live in a world with no technology? ;)

Seriously Alex, have a look at what you’ve written, they're not the writings of a rational person.
Perhaps you’ve missed your time slot in life and might have been better off being a prophet of the one true god back in the dark ages somewhere :rolleyes:……….of course, you would have to leave your Touch and all the rest of the technology that was developed through measurement and reason behind, but that shouldn’t be a problem for a really dedicated zealot :)

Anyway something tells me further discussion on this topic is pointless.
What really matters is you seem happy in your world of delusion and as far as I know quite harmless.

Oh, btw, there is no truth :eek:

I was talking about truths and measurements that matter. We can always engross ourselves in pointless measurements, but at the end of the day, do those really matter to us?

In other words, if there are frequencies that are not meant for me to hear them (are basically useless to me), why would I want to measure them? On the other hand, why would I want to measure frequencies that I can already hear? I hear them well, I can fully experience them, so what's the point in measuring them?

It's like saying you can't really enjoy having sex unless you can very precisely measure the variations of your blood pressure and your heartbeat during the intercourse. Wouldn't you agree that such measurements, no matter how precise they may be, would be useless, pointless and irrelevant to the quality of your enjoyment?

Same applies to the enjoyment of listening to the music reproduction.

[DSJR]

There is no measuring tool in the entire universe that can come even close to the power and precision of your own brain/sense organs combo. Why are you intent on using inferior tools which will give you only half-truths when your own organism can tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

The brain and senses are sooooo easily fooled though. CD is ample when the original recording is referred to. Methinks you're asking for summat in the sonics that isn't really there. Many vinyl lovers do this to this day.

[gramofone]

Any serious audio designer (and I don't include myself in this) will tell you that two similar ohm-valued resistors can and will sound different in a given circuit.

I know the 'signatur'e sound of a number of exotic brands of resistor and can pick some of them out under blind listening conditions.

This doesn't mean that Ohm's Law does not apply.

Science is good at predicting physical world effects - if you know the current and resistance, Ohms can predict the precise voltage.

What a lot of Hi-Fi buffs, forget that - giving here the benefit of the doubt that they once knew - Hi-Fi isn't about Bass & Treble Response, Linearity and all the other Hi-Fi mumbo-jumbo.

It's about Music. Music is a purely subjective interpretation of a timed barrage of compound sine waves hitting the inner ear.

Currently there is no measuring equipment that can measure anything remotely of interest to a music lover. What are you going to measure: His/ her feelings and emotions ? ...

One thing you can predict in this domain: The more the recorded/ replayed event captures/ recreates the essence or spirit of the original musical event - the more enjoyable it will be to listen to.

"Pass the spirit-level, Jack will you ?" ...

[magiccarpetride]

Any serious audio designer (and I don't include myself in this) will tell you that two similar ohm-valued resistors can and will sound different in a given circuit.

I know the 'signatur'e sound of a number of exotic brands of resistor and can pick some of them out under blind listening conditions.

This doesn't mean that Ohm's Law does not apply.

Science is good at predicting physical world effects - if you know the current and resistance, Ohms can predict the precise voltage.

What a lot of Hi-Fi buffs, forget that - giving here the benefit of the doubt that they once knew - Hi-Fi isn't about Bass & Treble Response, Linearity and all the other Hi-Fi mumbo-jumbo.

It's about Music. Music is a purely subjective interpretation of a timed barrage of compound sine waves hitting the inner ear.

Currently there is no measuring equipment that can measure anything remotely of interest to a music lover. What are you going to measure: His/ her feelings and emotions ? ...

One thing you can predict in this domain: The more the recorded/ replayed event captures/ recreates the essence or spirit of the original musical event - the more enjoyable it will be to listen to.

"Pass the spirit-level, Jack will you ?" ...

Good stuff, I'm glad to see that some people are capable of getting pass the fascination with the machinery and the shiny measuring instruments and plots and graphs and get into the heart of the matter -- the content.

I'm assuming that by now anyone who's interested in this experiment had already downloaded the tracks. If I don't hear any objections from you, I'll yank the test tracks later today; I would also like to ask anyone who's downloaded those test tracks to please delete them from their local storage. These tracks have been temporarily posted for testing purposes only; if you like the music on those tracks, and you still don't own that music, please purchase it through regular channels.

[Stratmangler]

Alex

I've had a look at both files with an audio editor, and it's readily apparent that the files are not sourced from the same master.

The volume levels are not matched, and the length of the audio track differs by about a second.

So you're comparing apples with oranges.

[magiccarpetride]

Alex

I've had a look at both files with an audio editor, and it's readily apparent that the files are not sourced from the same master.

The volume levels are not matched, and the length of the audio track differs by about a second.

So you're comparing apples with oranges.

I'm aware of that. There was no way for me to find two tracks, one mastered and dithered in 16-bit, the other in 24-bit, that would be sourced from the same master. This is as close as I could get.

But hey, at least it's the same song, so it may give you half a chance to compare, side by side, how qualitatively different the sound is between the 16-bit dither and the 24-bit dither.

Apples to oranges? You bet. But at least they're both fruits. At least we're not comparing apples to the square root of two here.

[dave2010]

Alex
There is no measuring tool in the entire universe that can come even close to the power and precision of your own brain/sense organs combo. Why are you intent on using inferior tools which will give you only half-truths when your own organism can tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?I'm with some of the others here. The brain and sense organs are really not that great at measuring many things. However you do have a point in that we can appreciate aspects which are hard to measure. There's room for both approaches, but slagging off precision instruments and technology is not sensible. We should use tools like that to help us to work with the perceptions we ourselves are able to appreciate.

[MartinT]

There's room for both approaches

Agreed, Dave. We know we can hear things that are not measurable but good measurements such as Paul Miller's waterfall graphs are beginning to edge towards the measure of goodness in a component. We're a long way yet from explaining the many surprises that we hear every day, though.

[Welder]

“I know the 'signatur'e sound of a number of exotic brands of resistor and can pick some of them out under blind listening conditions.”

Priceless :D

I reckon the only way you’ll be able to pick out different resistors in an otherwise identical circuit is with your fingers ;)
However, you’re welcome to prove me wrong.

[gramofone]

“I know the 'signatur'e sound of a number of exotic brands of resistor and can pick some of them out under blind listening conditions.”

Priceless :D

I reckon the only way you’ll be able to pick out different resistors in an otherwise identical circuit is with your fingers ;)
However, you’re welcome to prove me wrong.

Mate, I've got much more productive things to do than answering your posts.

I suggest you would do better spending two minutes on some due diligence (DD) before sharing your thoughts (probably mistakenly) believing that anyone wants to read them.

Whereupon you might have noticed whole threads dedicated to the sonic differences between various makes of caps and resistors and other passives on any one of the DIY audio forums. Here is a link (at random) to have a look at: http://www.diyaudio.com/

In a Gainclone circuit, which has very few passives, the effects of changing just one element can stick out like dog's balls ... assuming you have ears of course.

[DSJR]

AlexI'm with some of the others here. The brain and sense organs are really not that great at measuring many things. However you do have a point in that we can appreciate aspects which are hard to measure. There's room for both approaches, but slagging off precision instruments and technology is not sensible. We should use tools like that to help us to work with the perceptions we ourselves are able to appreciate.

Well put sir :)

I do think that we forget just how many bog standard components and cables many tens of feet long are actually in the recording and mixing chain. To worry about a couple of fancy resistors in a playback system is obsessive to say the least IMO.

The most limiting thing in a playback system is the speakers themselves, which, unless they're perfectly set up electrostatics in a very good room, will give orders of magnitude higher distortion. In fact, it's often the phasey harshness in the upper crossover region which many amateurs mistake for "detail," as a mate found recently when evaluating some very well received (elsewhere) speakers from the European continent. They were coarse and "deeeeetailed," but totally unrealistic in balance.

Come back the BBC speaker legacy, all is forgiven (all those lucky Harbeth owners listening smugly to the music reproduced through them... Amazing how the "hifi" pales into insignificance when Harbeths are used, the music taking centre stage completely)

[Welder]

I just can’t help myself. Terrible lack of self control and most definitely childish but you’re such great fun ;)

“Mate, I've got much more productive things to do than answering your posts.”

I can appreciate that :scratch:


”I suggest you would do better spending two minutes on some due diligence (DD) before sharing your thoughts (probably mistakenly) believing that anyone wants to read them.”

Awwww, you’re mean. I try my hardest honest :)
It’s just this wry grin spreads across my face when I read your posts. That’s the great thing about the internet though isn’t it (?) anyone can pull up a soap box and have a say, no matter how ridiculous or far fetched their claims and insulting their arguments.
Fortunately I’ve got a hide like a Rhino from years of being an admin on a number of gaming forums full of 11 to 20 year old keyboard warriors………..and of course as a last resort there’s always Sunny.

Oh yeah, mustn’t forget my manners.Thanks for the link.
Yep, I’ve read lots of stuff on the merits of one component versus another; not quite sure how much of it I believe. No worries, between the deafness and the skepticism, not to mention my own experiences perhaps I’m not the best person to evaluate such things.
Anyway, as I wrote, the option to prove me wrong is open.

[MartinT]

Come back the BBC speaker legacy, all is forgiven (all those lucky Harbeth owners listening smugly to the music reproduced through them... Amazing how the "hifi" pales into insignificance when Harbeths are used, the music taking centre stage completely)

Not sure I entirely agree, while BBC speakers are very tonally accurate they can lack dynamic punch. It's the same problem as early KEF speakers suffered from - the bextrene cone effect.

[gramofone]

I think I actually agree with Martin T for once! :clap:

The doped cones solved some problems but created a few besides. I am too lazy at this time of night to look up the MMs of the Harbeth drivers, but it is probably too high for some people's tastes.

But I agree they do let (some of) of the music through.

[Welder]

An interesting tear up going on here.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Look-what-Linn-sold-2496

(I hope its okay to put such links up (Marko?) Just rip it out if not.)

From what I’ve read and from what I’ve measured (oh no, he’s measuring again :doh:) this is far from an isolated incident.
Had some interesting results from measuring some of my mates Hi Res downloads; not so res and a bit more high in quite a few cases :rolleyes:
Interestingly, some of the vinyl rips such as the ones Nick Beechwood put up not only sound better than some of the so called Hi Res stuff but measure better as well. Maybe you’ve got a small business in the making there Nick ;)
Trust the HD download providers……………………not likely mate
Trust your ears………………………………………..gonna get myself a pet bat.
:lolsign:

[Vincent Kars]

At AA you can find a couple of issues, most of all with HD-Tracks.
Upsampling 44.1 and selling it as hi res is unfortunately not uncommon.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/etv.mpl?forum=pcaudio

[DSJR]

Not sure I entirely agree, while BBC speakers are very tonally accurate they can lack dynamic punch. It's the same problem as early KEF speakers suffered from - the bextrene cone effect.

With respect sir, I don't think you've listened to current Harbeth models (Harbeth have never used bextrene IIRC). Use them with a decent stable amp of choice -I like Glen Croft's products myself, but they're not fussy, and you'll hear a decent sense of clarity, natural timbre and dynamics too.

I agree about *some* bextrene-coned speakers, but inefficiencies in the drive units can sometimes be sorted. Old dopy-bextrene Spendors like mine are hardly representative of either Spendor or Harbeth's current product and I'd much rather have the latter than some jazzed up boomy screech-boxes from many of today's "HiFi" manufacturers.

Anyway, the sensitivity of a speaker should be matched to the amp used with them.

[gramofone]

Guys

I received the flyer from HD Tracks regarding McCartney's "Band on the Run" re-release.

I copy/ paste some of the content of it below. If what they are saying is the truth then the "un-limited" version should be a completely new branch off the original master tape.

-----

"HDtracks is proud to welcome Paul McCartney's legendary classic Band on the Run in stunning 96kHz/24bit!

Paul McCartney personally supervised all aspects of the Band on the Run reissue. The work was done at Abbey Road studios using the same team that remastered the complete Beatles’ catalog in 2009.

"...with the newly remastered CD of Band on the Run: tape noise reduction has scarcely been used and the degree of limiting is subtle. In addition digital technology has advanced with the ability now to offer recordings in 24 bit/96kHz. The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which
is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

—Allan Rouse, Abbey Road Studios

---

[DSJR]

I think I actually agree with Martin T for once! :clap:

The doped cones solved some problems but created a few besides. I am too lazy at this time of night to look up the MMs of the Harbeth drivers, but it is probably too high for some people's tastes.

But I agree they do let (some of) of the music through.

Have Harbeth ever used doping on their cones? I thought the original ones were Polypropylene, which self-damps too well, then TPX and now this custom "Radial" material, which appears outstanding. None of which are covered in any goo whatsoever from memory.

Anyway, this thread-drift has nothing to do with the OP, so I'll leave it there for now..:)

[MartinT]

With respect sir, I don't think you've listened to current Harbeth models (Harbeth have never used bextrene IIRC). Use them with a decent stable amp of choice -I like Glen Croft's products myself, but they're not fussy, and you'll hear a decent sense of clarity, natural timbre and dynamics too.

No I haven't, and to be fair I was referring to the BBC designs not current models. I'm happy to hear that Harbeths are good sounding speakers, we need to keep our Hi-Fi industry :)

I still have a Croft SIP preamp and Series 4S power amp in the garage, they needs sorting and a good home but I've done my Croft homage.