General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Return to General Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?

186.10.17.79

Posted on April 9, 2014 at 05:33:12
There's a lot of discussion as to whether high resolution or high definition (HD) audio tracks can possibly have any sonic benefit, meaning do they sound better to the average listener.

There have been suggestions (including my own) that one means of comparison could be with a track from a redbook CD and the same track recorded from an LP. The LP track, with the right equipment, can be recorded and then converted to either 24/96 or 24/192 for playback.

But, practically speaking, if you compare a CD track to one that you recorded from an LP of the same title - is that a fair comparison?

That is, the LP and the CD may have gone through a different mastering process to better suit the specific medium and with consideration for the intended market. If any part of that is true, it may not be, but that doesn't really concern me.

The end result, and really the question we should be asking ourselves is whether the HD track will sound any better than the CD. Would a "fair" comparison be one where the master studio file was the same one used for the CD as well as the HD track?

And then there's also the issue of what type of system you propose to use to evaluate the benefits of either file - and whether that system is capable of resolving any potential difference.

From my perspective, this is what matters. When I record LP's at 1 bit/5.66 MHz and then eventually save them as 24/96 FLAC files I believe the playback is as close and true as the original analog sound of the LP.

The key issue is simply this. If you believe that a well recorded LP will sound better than a CD of the same label if played back in digital format as an HD track, then that's the answer to the question.

If you don't believe there's a difference, and can't or won't be bothered to look any further then that's fine. You certainly have the right to your opinion, substantiated or otherwise, but at least qualify it if that is the case.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 06:52:25
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
For a fair comparison you would have to start off with a hi-rez file, downsample it to 16/44 and compare that to your original hi-rez file. Plus you have to make sure that the files are level matched precisely to 0.1dB or better.


Make sure that your original file is actually full hi-rez. Many hi-rez files sold are just upsampled from a lower rate master. Beck's latest album for example was recorded in 44.1 (they are all clearly brickwall filtered at 20k) except two songs which were recorded in mp3 format (tell-tale brickwall at 16k). If you use something like that the result would be inconclusive plus you would definitely need some one else to switch between files so you do not know which is which.

 

If you intently listen to a comparison, switching quickly back-and-forth, maintaining all the while, posted on April 9, 2014 at 07:56:30
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
a hyper-alert critical attention to all sonic variables and if a clear "winner" doesn't emerge, I suggest you stop testing. The differences at that point--- to you--- obviously are insignificant to musical enjoyment. Of course, I am assuming that is the true goal. All too often, I get the impression some of my fellow hobbyists mistake the means for the end.

 

I definitely hear a difference., posted on April 9, 2014 at 08:05:38
And am constantly surprised when others claim there can't be one.

A/B testing is always difficult, but subtle and not so subtle changes in soundstage, dynamic range and resolution are unmistakable.

 

And that's part of the problem., posted on April 9, 2014 at 08:07:15
As you've detailed, you don't always know what you're getting.

But the question remains, whether you believe that HD files (if in fact they are) make a difference to your system and to you.

 

What Peak Levels do you get recording?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 08:29:41
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10583
Joined: April 12, 2002
Recording Level is a Varaiable.
How do you set it?
I'm already onboard for Hi Rez Downloads.

 

I don't need to worry about it that much....., posted on April 9, 2014 at 08:50:16
because the Korg digital recorder that I use is connected to a tape output on the preamp.

I do watch the peak level on the recorder. With certain combinations of cartridges and phono stages I've had to cut the recording level by up to -3.5 dB.

With my current setup I can leave the recording level at the factory default of 0 dB cut for both channels.

I like having it this way. On playback I don't bother with any changes or compensation to the original recording. If it's too soft, I turn it up - too loud and I turn it down.

 

RE: I don't need to worry about it that much....., posted on April 9, 2014 at 09:25:47
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10583
Joined: April 12, 2002
I used to have a Korg M1 or 2, and now a Sony D100.
On each, when making a Line Level Tape Out recording, I have to set the Level manually,
in order to get it just right, same on my Zoom H4N.
I've never heard of a Default recording level, do you mean it's turned all the way up on the Knob? Or is an Auto Level thing, my Zoom has that, never use it, always manual.
A high signal could blow out the Recorder pre Amp, I would think.
Anyway, thanks!

 

RE: I definitely hear a difference., posted on April 9, 2014 at 09:40:53
Can you elaborate a bit on how you created the two digital items you are comparing?

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 09:46:14
It's a fact.

There's almost an infinite number of variables involved here. All things being perfect and costs no object then of course we should do our vinyl transfers at the highest resolution possible.

The fact there is no obvious difference when listening today in no way should imply that 10 years down the road we'll get those same results.

 

High Resolution - Fact, posted on April 9, 2014 at 09:57:29
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
We do a lot of recording at higher bit rates- 24 bit 88KHz is common (this can be easily divided down to Redbook).

When you record at higher rates you sure don't need that brickwall filter. By reducing phase shift in the audio passband there is an immediate improvement in sound, even if the final output is Redbook.

Of course, the highest bit rate we have used is still no match for the LP (we have an LP mastering operation on site in the studio, see the link) in the resolution department. But I have to assume that for this thread that is getting off topic.

 

Thank you, posted on April 9, 2014 at 10:07:37
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
for providing a simple and logical explanation as to what many of us hear.

I just shake my head wondering why guys like "Monty" Montgomery miss the boat and would rather play with their oscilloscope attempting to *debunk* the value of high resolution recordings.

 

RE: I don't need to worry about it that much....., posted on April 9, 2014 at 10:37:04
Ah, I see where you're going with this. OK, I remember doing the same thing when I had a B77 - where I wanted the recording to be as loud as possible without going into the red.

With the Korg, from trial and error, and with the cartridge and phono stage that I now have I experimented with different gain settings on the RCA input so that a very loud passage would keep the signal below the peak, as recommended.

With that being done, and realizing that an album that has a lower output signal level will result in the recorder seeing the same thing, I don't often bother adjusting the gain setting. I'm OK with it being a bit lower - I simply turn it up a bit on playback.

And yes, I agree that I would also never use auto level. The Korg doesn't have it, so it's not an option. For that same reason I don't use Replay Gain either.

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact, posted on April 9, 2014 at 10:50:01
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
The funny thing is that since the mid '70s the vast majority of record cutting lathes run the signal through a digital delay running at 14 or 16bit 48k.

 

RE: I definitely hear a difference., posted on April 9, 2014 at 10:52:51
Well, OK, but remember that the key issue was whether you think that a well recorded LP saved at 24/96 or 24/192 will sound better than the "same" recording on CD.

Or, to put it differently, and with consideration for the fact that the LP track is now a 24/96 digital file, does that sound better than 16/14.4?

That's really the focus, and the reason for the title of the original post.

There's more details in one of my posts from a while ago at the link but the short story is that I have a number of LP's and the same title on CD. I've ripped the CD's to 16/14.4 FLAC. I've recorded the LP's and ended up with a 24/96 FLAC.

I can play and "compare" the two, but what I'm looking for is depth, soundstage placement of instruments and the presence or absence of subtle details. With the 24/96 I hear things that I don't on the CD track, or I hear them noticeably different.

What's that worth as a scientific experiment? Nothing. But, the question was this, does the high resolution file sound better than the CD version.

A better test would be to compare an HD download file of a particular track and compare that to the CD track. But, that download will be suspect in two areas - the type and quality of the source material and whether it's just an upsampled CD track.

The only controls that I have for my experiment are what's been detailed here. I suppose I could save the LP track at 16/14.4 and compare that to the CD, but that's not my goal.

My goal is to record all of my LP's and then to save them in a digital format that I think gives great resolution that sounds like the original LP while still having a manageable file size.

Hope this helps.

 

It's a fictional fact..., posted on April 9, 2014 at 10:58:12
"High Resolution" systems satisfy the mind but "right sounding" systems satisfy the heart, so we might need both of these things to be happening. For many of us, I suspect that the real stumbling block (in high resolution playback) is in our very selves and/or in the rooms that we are stuck with. Rooms and egos, not formats and electronic components, are holding our systems hostage.

A good room allows for high resolution playback, a bad room hinders it. Good rooms have low noise floors, do not hamper smooth and extended frequency response and/or dynamics, and allow for spacious soundstaging and realistic imaging - while bad rooms hamper all of those things. Our rooms are "low-rez". And, if our rooms allow for less resolution than a standard vinyl LPs does, then it's safe to say that we have a problem!

Remember also that bigger rooms are better then smaller ones (for the most part). Bigger rooms allow for the best in high resolution playback. We cannot always afford bigger rooms but room size might be even more important, from an acoustical standpoint, than room dimensions are. Consider the puniness of your room then, as it is one more limiting factor in your pursuit of high resolution playback.

Additionally, I think that people tend to pick and choose the aspects of "high resolution" that they like best, hi-fi be damned. The sonic aspects that flatter our egos and/or our present systems are favored over those aspects that expose too many weaknesses. So, in many ways, "hi-rez" is a moot issue...

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 11:03:05
Hey, I was going to say that! :)

I'd only add that, even if the people conducting the test cover those bases, there's still a bump in the road. The downsampled version has gone through an extra set of electronics (the sample rate converter and the subsequent digital recorder), which add their own sonic signature to the resulting file. In an effort to reduce the number of variables to something closer to "one", it would make sense to also run the original HR file through the converter, maintaining the original bit depth and sample rate, and record it on the same digital recorder, even though no downsampling is actually done. At least then, the new "unchanged" HR file has gone through the same set of electronics as the downsampled version.

:)

 

RE: It's a fictional fact..., posted on April 9, 2014 at 11:07:21
I think that for most people, High Resolution means exactly that - a music track that will be close or closer to live sound.

You know, the goal of any stereo system, or at least for some of us - to reproduce music at home that has a proper sense of placement and realism.

That's with the understanding that the goal will likely not ever be achieved, certainly not with the budgets that most of us have to work with.

For what it's worth, we have two Maine Coon cats, brothers from the same litter. Jax is a bit of a joker, if he want's your attention he'll go through the kitchen and open up every cupboard door and then move on to the end tables and sideboard.

His brother is much more reserved, and when the stereo is playing something he likes he flops down in front of one of the speakers and settles in. If the music stops playing for too long he'll get up, come over to where you are and give you a head butt to get your attention.

When LP's are playing, he listens to anything that's on. With CD's, he sometimes doesn't bother and moves on. So there you have it. Proof positive that LP's sound better than CD's.

 

RE: I definitely hear a difference., posted on April 9, 2014 at 11:16:33
For the most part even my 24 bit dac and 44k Sony recorded CDs from vinyl sounded better than the manufactured CDs about as often as vinyl sounds better than the CD.

It's pointless to compare a manufactured CD to vinyl.

No doubt your 24/96 recordings are going to sound at least as good as my 24/44 recordings. Not so sure you would do so well in a comparison between CDs.

I was mainly interested in how your CD quality recordings of vinyl sounded in comparison to your higher rez recordings. I thought you mentioned they sound better.

But I think if you want to make both a CD and a high rez recording for comparisons sake you should be using 24/88.

For whatever it's worth.

 

That is for the preview head only, posted on April 9, 2014 at 11:46:26
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
The preview head does use a digitized signal but has nothing at all to do with the signal chain driving the cutterhead.

The idea is you take the output of the preview head (which is an additional tape head on the tape deck, about 2 seconds ahead of the main playback head) and create a digital output from it.

This output is then used to drive the electronics that operate the thread drive motor which advances the cutterhead across the LP. In this way, if there is a loud sound like a bass drum whack, the cutterhead makes room for it one rotation in advance so that the resulting groove will not overcut a previous groove.

This technology has indeed been around for a while and is known as 'variable groove spacing' or the like. The RCA Dynagroove system was an early analog version of the same idea.

 

Thanks a lot! nt, posted on April 9, 2014 at 11:56:52
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10583
Joined: April 12, 2002
/

 

Do I care? no. mainly due tothe cost. Hirez is a money pit. I do not need ANOTHER copy of the same stuff, posted on April 9, 2014 at 12:50:38
SInce all hirez REALLY is, is another way to sell me the same old crap over again.
We DID this once for CD. Rebuying everything over again that we had on LP in he CD format. The record companies got very rich off that. And still are always looking for the next 'Golden Fleece' to make MORE money off the same old product.
Generally I am happy wih my used LPs and CDs.
So when someone is hawking $30 to $45 files of the same old stuff with all sorts of promises... I pass.

I confess though, I do buy a few of the reissued LPs.. When my old copy is not great. And used are more expensive than new.

 

RE: I definitely hear a difference., posted on April 9, 2014 at 12:58:20
I am comparing a manufactured CD to vinyl, but not directly.

When the LP is recorded and digitized and then saved as a 24/96 FLAC file, what does it become? A digital approximation of the analog LP or a digital file that can sound no worse than the LP?

I don't make CD's of the recorded LP's, they remain as software files only. What I mentioned was that the recorded LP's at 24/96 sound better than the CD's of the same title from the same label, for what that's worth.

And don't get me wrong, a lot of the CD's I have sound good and even more LP's sound not so good.

 

I agree with you., posted on April 9, 2014 at 13:03:36
That's why I bought a digital recorder, so that I don't have to buy music I already have. Whatever quality that exists with the recording on the LP is what it's going to be.

The goal was to have all of my music in a digital format with CD's and LP's so that I can play them back from a music server.

As far as the LP's go, I would much rather invest in good quality used LP's that I don't have rather than reissues of things that I do.

In other words, I'm making my own "high resolution" files from LP's. That may not give me the same quality as something directly from the master tapes, but it's music that I already own. I don't care what is available online for download, whether HD or not. If an album is going for more than $10.00 I'll keep buying the redbook CD for new stuff and a used LP for older stuff.

Edit: At last count, I've ripped over 600 CD's and have recorded over 700 LP's. I'm over halfway through a bit more than 1,300 LP's. The total collection takes up about 800 GB.

 

right but does that (using manufactured CDs) validate hi-rez recording?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 13:27:19
No it does not - it's just a comparison of different manufacturing processes. So it's not worth much. Like I said my 44/24 bit recordings sound better than the CDs about as often as the vinyl sounds better than the CD. I don't consider 44 high rez and if accuracy is the key then the best HD can do is the same as 44/24 - in the test you have set up. The listening comparison needs to be done here between the same sourced digital files.


"When the LP is recorded and digitized and then saved as a 24/96 FLAC file, what does it become? A digital approximation of the analog LP or a digital file that can sound no worse than the LP?"

No it can sound no better than the lp from which it is recorded.

My point here is the value of HD has to be that it's better than CD quality. Comparisons to vinyl make no sense.

 

RE: right but does that (using manufactured CDs) validate hi-rez recording?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 13:42:35
Quote: "My point here is the value of HD has to be that it's better than CD quality. Comparisons to vinyl make no sense."

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance.

If I had HD digital recordings that I knew had been recorded and mastered at 24/96 or 24/192 then that could have been the basis for comparison.

We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed.

 

Try ABX using samples taken from the same master, posted on April 9, 2014 at 13:44:09
Don't bother trying to compare samples derived from LP and CD in this manner, because who knows if the same master was used, and in any event the LP noise is a dead giveaway.

You can get free high-res tracks from Archive.org, and in the past, HDTracks has offered free sampler albums too. I'd generate all lower-res tracks from the same high-res files, making sure that levels remain unchanged. For grins, try high-res vs 16/44.1 vs Variable Bit-Rate MP3, etc.

There is at least one free ABX comparator (ABXTester) available through Apple's App Store

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 13:53:01
soldermizer
Audiophile

Posts: 636
Location: Brooksville, FL
Joined: April 15, 2005
I'm glad to see a few skeptics here. The answer of course is "yes" (or "no") -- depending upon your point of view. Ultimately it SHOULD be whether the sound will please you. Of course, admit it or not, a lot of other bull**** enters into the equation too: Is my system the "best"? Will it impress my friends? That's the sound of an Ego inflating itself. Don't feel ashamed, all humans do it. A Double blind (deaf?) test might reveal a difference -- but probably not. Then the True Believer will claim the test was defective in some way (another defect of thinking common to Brain).

I've been waiting for a Theist to ask me if I've been "saved." I wil pounce upon him with a question: "Does the number three exist?" No matter how he answers, I will argue: "the number three (or any number) does exist, but only in our human minds. I challenge you to show me -- anywhere in the Universe -- the pure number three." In the same way, I argue here that beauty is in the ear (mind) of the beholder.

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 14:00:15
Certainly, there are a lot of variables. But as a community we need to be able to agree on certain basic aspects of our hobby.

If someone asks "Is it worth paying more for an HD album?", we should be able to answer with something other than confusion.

 

RE: right but does that (using manufactured CDs) validate hi-rez recording?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 14:13:21
"Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance."

That hardly makes your comparison reasonable or worthwhile in justifying high definition recording.


"We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed."

What we agree upon is there's definitely a difference between vinyl and CDs. IMO this has more to do with manufacturing than analog v. digital.


 

RE: Try ABX using samples taken from the same master, posted on April 9, 2014 at 14:18:26
I'll check out Archive.org, thanks for the tip.

 

Will it impress my friends? ..., posted on April 9, 2014 at 14:37:38
reelsmith.
Audiophile

Posts: 13134
Location: CT
Joined: June 7, 2005
Contributor
  Since:
January 19, 2010
My system impresses all of my friends.

You guys, probably not so much.

I like it though.

Your question of the existence of the number 3 reminds me of a girl I once dated. We were out flea marketing one day and came across a table I liked. I asked her what she thought of the table. She replied "How do you know its a table"?

I think you would have liked her.

Dean.


reelsmith's axiom: Its going to be used equipment when I sell it, so it may as well be used equipment when I buy it.


 

I'm not justifying high resolution recording., posted on April 9, 2014 at 15:01:36
I'm asking if you hear a difference between HD and CD.

I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD.

My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument.

Where else could that HD track have come from, with provenance that could not be disputed?

I suppose I could do the MFSL thing, and go out with a portable reel to reel to record trains or thunderstorms and then make digital files of that.

But the question was for you to answer, not me.

 

RE: Do I care? no. mainly due tothe cost. Hirez is a money pit. I do not need ANOTHER copy of the same stuff, posted on April 9, 2014 at 15:09:39
Yup.

 

RE: I agree with you., posted on April 9, 2014 at 15:21:19
I just love the fact that one of the vinyl stores here has a small selection of used CDs for $4.98 to $7.98.

Love to leave their place with two decent Jazz CDs for twelve bucks or so with tax.

 

I have to drive three hours., posted on April 9, 2014 at 15:33:25
To get to the nearest LP/CD store, from North Bay to Barrie Ontario. It's just not something that I do that often, but do try to fit it in whenever I can.

 

And I told you even a CD quality recording of vinyl sounds better than a manufactured CD!, posted on April 9, 2014 at 16:18:31
"I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD."

And I'm saying you don't need to do an HD recording for that - a CD quality recording of vinyl will do that.

"My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument."

You seem to want to insist that your results have something to do with the fact the recording is HD. I'm saying you can get the same results without HD. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest recording to some of the better lossy formats would give the same results.

 

RE: Thank you, posted on April 9, 2014 at 17:41:02
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
Ralph seems to be saying that one doesn't need hi-rez playback to get the advantage of a hi-rez recording. Maybe he could clarify.

I think that's what most people want to know when they are paying extra for hi-rez downloads.

 

I do not rebuy albums because, posted on April 9, 2014 at 18:01:03
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8491
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023
I am cheap. I do buy select hi Rez music, but generally not older music. I just buy older stuff on CD and burn it in.
Gsquared

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 9, 2014 at 18:01:39
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
You're comparing a rip of the vinyl to a CD transfer. This says nothing about the value of hi-rez. A RBCD taken from an LP can often best an RBCD taken from the master tapes for various reasons: deterioration of the master tape, a tin-eared mastering engineer, poor electronics, etc.

A better test would be to dither/downsample your rips to 16/44, and then compare that against your orignal hi-rez rip. The only variable here is the quality of the downsampling.

If you buy hi-rez files from eClassical, you can also download the 16/44 files of the same album for free. The variables here are the provenance of the hi-rez and 16/44 files, which is not under our control. However, I think this is what most folks want to know: is it worthwhile to spend the extra money on the hi-rez download when a standard rez download is available for less.

 

The world has been deceived.....there is nothing but MP3. *, posted on April 9, 2014 at 18:17:20
Billy Wonka
Audiophile

Posts: 3765
Joined: April 25, 2013
Contributor
  Since:
October 15, 2013
.

 

RE: Will it impress my friends? ..., posted on April 9, 2014 at 20:54:29
geraldm121
Audiophile

Posts: 748
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: January 9, 2007
Dean well put, another case of rampant Hi Fi hypochondria !

 

Absolutely, though with the caveat that hi-rezzin' your lps makes sense because they, posted on April 9, 2014 at 21:50:40
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
won't develop anymore sizzles, pops, and snaps.
Redbook is as good as anyone's 60+ ears needs to appreciate.
Of course, I'm open-minded to DBT results showing the superiority of hi rez.

 

Both..........., posted on April 9, 2014 at 23:32:50
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
High-resolution analog, there are no artifacts or side effects that would compromise the sound.... 30 ips tape is still the best medium, if one can source music and maintain the playback source..... Vinyl, with exacting alignments, a resolute and linear pickup/step-up, and a stable platform, does well too.

But with digital audio, there are both side effects and overkill to high-resolution playback.

Each digital audio bit switching on and off generates pulses, whose bandwidth goes all the way to RF. The more resolution, the more bits switching and with greater time density, the greater the RFI emissions..... I've never heard a high-resolution digital source (higher bitrate than CD quality) that I thought was truly enjoyable, from a music standpoint.

The overkill in digital audio is from the bit word length. 16 bits is 96 dB dynamic range, 18 bits is 108 dB, 20 bits is 120 dB. And 24 bits, the "standard" for high-resolution playback, is 144 dB. The problem is for music performance, the noise floor is *rarely* over 100 dB. So in my opinion, 18 bits would be ideal for digital audio. Anything over that, the least significant bits will be acting on noise, not the signal. And again, those extra bits also means extra RFI emissions. This is why high-resolution digital audio has so underachieved, for both mainstream consumers and audiophiles.

 

Slightly off topic..., posted on April 10, 2014 at 04:11:24
But many would wonder why the high resolution download costs more than the standard version of the same album. There is a perception that the labels charge more because they can, based on the assumption with most consumers that more is better and worth paying a premium.

From a technical perspective, and download speeds notwithstanding, there should be little difference between asking someone to send over a high resolution version (if it exists) or standard resolution version of any album.

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact, posted on April 10, 2014 at 04:17:12
Interesting, it's always good to hear from someone who has detailed and specific knowledge.

The LP mastering hardware looks interesting. Does it get used much?

 

I wonder which is the actual dynamic range of tapes ?, posted on April 10, 2014 at 05:58:33
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi,
i start from the consideration that many people consider tapes the best medium.
So measuring their dynamic range would be a good reference for digital medium requirements.
Moreover i wonder which is the max available dynamic range with vinyl.
I am very curious because also vinyl has many supporters.
I do not think that LPs have more than let's say 96dB dynamic range
Found this ... i do not know it it is true or not, as usual

" •Live music can have a dynamic range as high as 100-120 dB (very loud!)
•Compact discs have a maximum dynamic range of 96dB
•An LP has a dynamic range of approximately 65dB
•Magnetic tape (cassette, reel to reel) has a dynamic range of approximately 55-60 dB "

If this is true the problem with cd does not seem the dynamic range
Personally i prefer 48k instead of 44.1k
Because i listened to some digital audio tapes and they were fantastic.
I am trying to convince a friend who has bought a really fine Pioneer Dat to make some good copies of high quality LPs for comparison tests.
Thanks a lot.

Kind regards,
bg

 

I seem to recall my Revox B77 had about 70 dB., posted on April 10, 2014 at 06:30:44
At least, that was the published specification. That, with a flat frequency response made it a great machine for very high quality home use with a quarter track 3-3/4 & 7 ips or the half track 7 and 15 ips for two track final mixdown.

 

best is no digits whatever!! but differences are heard subconsciously sometimes..., posted on April 10, 2014 at 06:58:28
Tom Schuman
Audiophile

Posts: 2632
Location: Bremen
Joined: October 22, 2003
...and subjects under test conditions show increased brain activity when exposed to compressed music (say mp3s) as opposed to uncompressed, or analog, signals.

That means, even if people say they can't hear certain differences, it doesn't mean that their brains don't perceive them and work to adjust accordingly. The work associated with having to interpret compressed sounds is shown to cause excessive stress in listeners....

You can record to DSD and then 24/96 FLAC and with a good ADC and DAC then usually the playback is largely indistinguishable to inexperienced listeners, but I assume the brain still has to work to 'like' the result as much as it would the original track played back purely in an analog system. Keep in mind that any transistors in the recording/playback chain are also 'switchers' and introduce inherent distortions of their own.

Probably the most listenable DACs (over time) are the ones that don't use digital filters at all and rely on really well designed tube output stages.

Unfortunately, while a good article, the below article is in German and doesn't address the OP's question directly, since it mainly deals with heavily compressed music and sounds, where FLAC and 24/96 are not heavily compressed.....

Speaking of, compression is often part of the recording process, so the answer to your question will also depend on the recording itself and the techniques used there, whether phase and /or polarity is preserved, whether there is a lot of digital processing in the chain,etc....
:)

 

RE: Both..........., posted on April 10, 2014 at 07:27:10
"The overkill in digital audio is from the bit word length. 16 bits is 96 dB dynamic range, 18 bits is 108 dB, 20 bits is 120 dB. And 24 bits, the "standard" for high-resolution playback, is 144 dB. The problem is for music performance, the noise floor is *rarely* over 100 dB. So in my opinion, 18 bits would be ideal for digital audio. Anything over that, the least significant bits will be acting on noise, not the signal. And again, those extra bits also means extra RFI emissions. This is why high-resolution digital audio has so underachieved, for both mainstream consumers and audiophiles."

If this were true wouldn't it then become a training issue for people making 24 bit recordings - ie. back off the gain?

 

RE: That is for the preview head only, posted on April 10, 2014 at 07:27:41
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
Here is what a mastering/cutting engineer has to say on this (they modified their lathe to get a true analog path):
"Marino describes, “The basic setup for cutting records is that you have an analog playback machine and the playback head feeds the signal to the cutting lathe. To cut a record properly, the computer in the cutting lathe needs to have a ‘preview’ [of what’s coming next as it’s printing], which is typically done via digital delay. The lathe gets two signals — the preview and the digitally delayed signal — and it’s the delayed signal that gets cut to the lacquer, which is not ideal.” "

Below link to article.

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact, posted on April 10, 2014 at 07:59:47
"Of course, the highest bit rate we have used is still no match for the LP (we have an LP mastering operation on site in the studio, see the link) in the resolution department. But I have to assume that for this thread that is getting off topic."

What do you mean by no match for the LP?

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 10, 2014 at 08:32:30
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
Not really.
Downsampling should be done in the digital domain so the signal merely runs through another algorithm.
Even the simplest DAW software does that without any need of electronics.

 

Thank you. So it seems to me that the dynamic range available with basic CD format is more than enough, posted on April 10, 2014 at 08:34:04
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004

And if the sound fails to convince is not for a limited dynamic range
It must be something else.
By the way i would like to have at least the 48k sampling rate
It is just a better feeling
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg

 

We try..., posted on April 10, 2014 at 08:34:16
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
Remastering an early Michael Yonkers LP right now. Doing some independent releases after that.

 

See, that's where the big problem is, posted on April 10, 2014 at 08:56:51
While the specified dynamic range for CD is way higher than cassette or LP, who would doubt that! - by around 20 dB or so - the *perceived* dynamic range is frequently actually a lot less!! 3 dB is double so 20 dB represents what? One hundred times more?!! Two orders of magnitude! Can my math really be right? LOL Am I the only one who finds off the shelf CDs thin-sounding, like papier mâché, lifeless and blah, like a cheap radio?

 

No you're not the only one but I find it an unfair (to digital) generalization., posted on April 10, 2014 at 09:21:56
Once we get by the manufacturing and playback system issues I think it's clear CDs are capable of far better performance than LPs.

And I don't believe any technical discussion is required to hear the obvious. People seem to expect and like the colorations/distortions of vinyl.

 

that's a sloppy way to do it, posted on April 10, 2014 at 09:30:40
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
-And the better operations (RTI, QRP are examples) don't do it that way as mentioned in the article- they maintain an entirely analog signal path to the head.

There is no good reason I can think of to delay the signal in the digital domain, not if you are coming off of analog tape (unless you just don't want to pay for the machine work to do the preview head-nest). If the master file is digital then that is a different story.

We solved the problem by using an computer to store advance information of the LP side. So we have to play the source for it without the lathe running. Then we start over again, only this time the information gathered by the computer is used to drive the advance threads.

BTW Chris at Sterling is a customer of ours.

 

"People seem to expect and like the colorations/distortions of vinyl.", posted on April 10, 2014 at 09:31:41
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
You've hit the nail square on the head.

Ever since digital recording came about engineers seem to be desperate to get the general analog 'filth' back by means of adding distortion, using valve mic pre's, tape emulation plug ins etc.

 

As someone else have said there is a lot of manipulation, posted on April 10, 2014 at 10:01:51
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
If you take "purist" recordings made with minimal manipulation the quality is very good indeed. It depends on the shelf you buy your CDs from.
I heard spectacular recordings from Labels dedicated to achieve the best quality. Very good indeed.
Still i notice that pros for DAT preferred a higher sampling rate.
I am sure they did some kind of test and found the cd format 44.1k sampling rate not enough.
But 16/48 is a very good combination, on the basis of some DAT listening i did.
I do not like tape in general. They are a pain to use.
Kind regards,
bg

 

the best digital still does not match the LP for resolution. , posted on April 10, 2014 at 10:07:47
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
We've seen that plenty of times.

Of course, if an LP is done in a sloppy fashion, that is the problem with that particular LP, not *all* LPs. People often exercise a Hasty Generalization in this regard...

Something most people don't know is that if you have a good lathe cut, its devoid of surface noise- all phono sections will have more noise. The noise comes in from sloppy pressing practices. One house that is exceptional (IOW state-of-the-art) is QRP in Salinas, Kansas. They have done work to their pressing machines to kill vibration as the LP is cooling, and they have noise floors similar to the lathe cuts. They can be so quiet its spooky!

Obviously we do analog and digital recordings side by side. We have yet to have a client prefer the digital presentation- the differences are pretty obvious.

 

RE: Thank you, posted on April 10, 2014 at 10:12:26
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
I think that's what most people want to know when they are paying extra for hi-rez downloads.

I know because I have heard and own quite a few! That's the only thing that matters to me.

Not every recording, however, labeled as "high rez" is necessarily better than a lower resolution version, but most in my collection certainly are.

YMMV.

 

That's not exactly what I was saying., posted on April 10, 2014 at 10:19:49
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
I did point out that on the record side you don't need a brickwall filter anymore with a higher scan frequency (although there is still a filter, just not so severe) and that there is a benefit even if you are only operating on Redbook in playback.

But if you playback at the higher bit rate of course that is even better, assuming your DAC really is up to it.

When we are mastering an LP from a digital file, we encourage the client to give us the highest resolution file they have- it makes for a better sounding LP.

I have to say at this point I really don't understand why someone would record at 44Khz/16 bit when there is so much hardware that can do better than that for very little cash! If you think about it, 44Khz 16 bits was created as a standard at a time when the Apple 2 was king. How quaint, how archaic. Look at how far computing has come in the last 34 years and we are still using that standard??

 

How do you measure resolution? (the kind vinyl does better than CD) , posted on April 10, 2014 at 10:53:18
Or are we talking about something that requires a subjective appraisal?

 

Which capsule should I choose?*, posted on April 10, 2014 at 11:32:33
YRY
Audiophile

Posts: 491
Location: So. California
Joined: April 4, 2002
*

 

Dynamic range is not the only issue, of course, posted on April 10, 2014 at 12:33:10
Tom Schuman
Audiophile

Posts: 2632
Location: Bremen
Joined: October 22, 2003
As you know, there are a host of problems with digital audio, and "dynamic range" is not really one of them. The best tapes have about as much dynamic range as the old 14 (real) bit philips machines, which tells you that the barriers to good digital sound still have more to do with jitter, digital filters, digital processing, perhaps RFI, etc. than with signal to noise ratio as traditionally measured.

In any case, I'd rather listen to a great analog recording with a lower signal to noise ratio, on an analog system, than a sterile, high S/N digital recording, with its artificial 'black' background. As James Taylor once put it, when listening to CD, there's no 'there' there. The space between the notes is lost in the digitization.

Higher resolution digital can sound better than CD not because it has a higher S/N ratio, but because there's more real information, more 'there' there. And because it doesn't have to brickwall filter the output at 20kHz.

Too bad DVD audio and SACD are almost dead, DVD-A was really promising.

Downsampling 24/96 to CD standard causes all sorts of unecessary problems. If they had gone with DVD as the standard storage medium and say 16 or 20 bits / 88kHz as the standard sampling freq., we'd all be complaining less about digital sound. Alas, the marketplace had other ideas, due to Sonyphilips et al trying to protect patents, and little agreement in the industry about standards. Not to mention the further, unrelated complexities of getting reproduced music to sound like the real thing (transistors, crossovers, etc).

But that's all hindsight.

I have great sounding CDs, and I have great sounding LPs, and I have crappy sounding CDs and LPs. I haven't heard a crappy sounding SACD, then again, something like the Rolling Stones on SACD can also be underwhelming because of the mastering.


 

I never got into SACD...., posted on April 10, 2014 at 12:50:33
it just never peeked up over the horizon for me. Like a lot of people, I was getting a bit burned out after having bought CD's at over $20.00 each, some up to $25.00.

And around the same time, out comes DVD and now we get to replace all of our VHS tapes. And then, SACD? Hah! Not gonna happen!

As you say, it's too bad that things went the way they did. Of course, what's best for the consumer was never factored into it - what's best for the corporation and the shareholders will always take precedence.

And then, as we can see from popular opinion, many believe that CD sound is just fine, thank you very much. So maybe Sony and Philips did have it right - they certainly had a considerable return on their investment.

 

RE: Dynamic range is not the only issue, of course, posted on April 10, 2014 at 12:53:33
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
"As James Taylor once put it, when listening to CD, there's no 'there' there. The space between the notes is lost in the digitization."

Prior to the digital age, audiophiles often talked about "intertransient silence", as an important element of high quality audio playback.... But since digitized audio became the norm, the term is no longer a part of audio discussion.

 

That's a really good question!, posted on April 10, 2014 at 13:05:38
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
So far all the talk I see bandied about suggests that resolution is a subjective term. There are of course the specs:

You can suggest resolution in the digital world with bits and scan frequencies- generally speaking the higher the better.

With analog its a different animal- bandwidth, noise, distortion all play a role (and BTW, in a lathe cut you have more bandwidth and lower distortion that you do with digital, although in practical terms more noise as the phono reproducer will be the primary noise generator and the limit is about -90 db or so). This is because noise and distortion will block detail due to the ear's masking principle.

People are often surprised at how low the distortion can be on an LP; let's put it this way- its impossible to overload the cutter amplifiers. By the time they make about 10% of full power they will have toasted the cutterhead. And the cutterhead can make nice clean cuts that no cartridge would ever have a hope of tracking long before its overloaded.

I can't say for certain that the things I've listed are indeed the whole story- for example although you loose phase information with less bandwidth, things can still sound pretty good if it only goes to 20KHz before it rolls. We can put 30KHz on our lathe cuts easily enough and it plays back fine on a modest turntable. 20Hz on the bottom end isn't the limit either. The mechanical resonance of the pickup is the limiter there.

Consequently I go for 'subjective experience' even though the specs favor analog by about 70%. I just don't think the specs that we use today tell the whole story. If they did, we would be able to tell how a product sounds just by looking at the paper. But that is a topic for a whole 'nuther thread!

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 10, 2014 at 20:16:14
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I've done these tests on a number of occasions, starting with 176/24 and downsampling to 44/16. Then I upsample back to 176/24 and compare the original and the processed file. That way, the entire real-time playback chain is identical throughout the comparison and the only difference in the complete record - playback chain is the two passes through the sample rate converter. I use the 64 bit SRC software in iZotope RX 2 Advanced.

I listen for tonal balance, musical transients and soundstage. There are a lot of controls available with the iZotope SRC and you can set them so that 44/16 sounds pretty good, but no setting will allow all of the original tonal balance, musical transients and soundstage to make it through the 44/16 "knothole", but the differences are subtle, and not a reason to avoid buying 44/16 recordings, unless they are not available in higher resolution.

I digitize cassette tapes at 88/24. I have found that these digital transfers sound better when played at 88/24 than after downsampling to 44/16. In a sense, 44/16 isn't as good as a good cassette tape.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 11, 2014 at 02:50:21
Tony, that all makes sense. I wonder, though, if you're gaining anything useful by using 24 bits, given the limited dynamic range of the cassette (typically). You could save some disk space by using 16 bits, and possibly not hear a difference.

I record live concerts at 88/24 typically with just a pair of Schoeps condensers, using 24 bits mostly so I have less noise for subsequent processing (EQ, etc.).

:)

 

RE: That's a really good question!, posted on April 11, 2014 at 03:17:03
Hey Ralph, got an off-topic question for ya, but first... Your Ampex 351 and Scully lathe are taking me way back! My old friend George Johnston (long passed away) in Oshkosh, WI used that same stuff! As a high school & college kid, it was always fun to go over to his house and talk about recording and watch him run his lathe. Good times! He inspired me to get into the audio biz.

Anyway...

There used to be companies like KM Records in New Jersey which would do "one-off" or short run (100-200) LP pressings. Does anyone do that anymore? Just curious. Thanks.

:)

 

"30 ips tape is still the best medium", posted on April 11, 2014 at 06:57:54
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
Frankly nobody would accept a DA or AD convertor with a frequency response as bad as tape.

The extended HF response at 30ips is paid for by a reduced LF response.
Distortion is also substantially higher than even the cheapest digital convertor.

See link for some typical FRs of multitrack tape machines. Only the last and most expensive Studer gets anywhere close to 16/44.

 

RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction?, posted on April 11, 2014 at 07:08:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
When I record cassettes I like to make only one pass over them, especially when they are old. So I don't know how loud they are recorded. I tend to keep the gain down, thereby wasting one or two bits, which are precious with a 16 bit format, but not so with 24 bits where the limit is more likely to be headroom in analog circuitry, etc... Some of the cassettes are original recordings made on metal tape using Dolby C. These have up to 70 dB of S/N ratio, which is roughly comparable to what you get with 16 bits where you have left headroom to ensure a clean recording. So I think it useful to capture the analog signal at 24 bits.

In the end, I release this material in 44/16. The original 88/24 recording gets converted to 88/32fp for editing and mastering. The levels get normalized at this point so there are no more wasted bits. Then I downsample to 44/32fp and finally dither to 44/16. There is usually an audible difference between the 88/32fp and the 44/32fp due to the lower sampling rate. There is usually a further audible difference between 44/32. Some cassettes were professionally recorded and I have access to duplicating cassettes. Others are production copies, but not high speed duplicated. Still others are not so professionally recorded and can need all manner of work. There are also the occasional dropout and glitches that need digital repair. It is a delight when I get a clean tape that needs nothing more than a flat transfer and splitting into tracks, but this is not the norm.

In this work I am not concerned with disk space. When I am done I keep the original 88/24 transfer, the 88/32fp master and the 44/16 final. Sometimes I keep additional 88/32fp versions if I think that some rework may be necessary. The cost of disk space is insignificant compared to the value of my time.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

"Look at how far computing has come in the last 34 years", posted on April 11, 2014 at 07:37:22
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
Absolutely! Digital audio has always been driven by the storage technology of the day.

I work in the IT field and back in the early 80s, data storage cost almost $500/megabyte. I remember upgrading our mini computer to a multi-platter 75MB removable drive that cost about $35,000.

I just finished my daily backup of about 10 GB of personal and business files to a $30 USB nano drive the size of my thumbnail.

 

Yes they do., posted on April 11, 2014 at 08:25:58
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4778
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
A lot of local bands do short run. Our first LP (Thunderbolt Pagoda) was 360 copies. So the pressing houses do that, but the pricing is rough- generally you will barely break even with an LP around 300 copies assuming you have them priced right.

 

RE: "30 ips tape is still the best medium", posted on April 11, 2014 at 12:59:31
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9181
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
And yet it is still considered to be far better sounding than all but the very best digital...If not better than ANY digital.

When will you realize that you haven't a clue about what it is that makes devices that measure according to you inferior but to most sound better? Sounds like an issue with the measurements you are parading around with and not the reality.

The truth is that one can easily hear sound well below the noise floor of the tape machine because that noise is uncorrelated with the signal and your brain knows how to ignore as not being part of the music. Also, a good slab of vinyl is actually very quiet (well over 90db down) over a wide range of the frequency response.

 

RE: "30 ips tape is still the best medium", posted on April 11, 2014 at 13:34:24
b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006
Of all the people in the recording business I know not one of them considers tape to be more accurate or of higher resolution than digital including those who regularly use tape.

Tape is simply inaccurate and distorted in a pleasant way ie euphonic.
Which is nice sometimes or even most of the time but it is far from the best if accuracy is your goal.

 

That makes no sense. You're saying that a CD recording of an original LP sounds better than, posted on April 11, 2014 at 13:40:35
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
a CD of the same performance taken from the same master (as was used in the LP)?
Adding another entire process of recording IMPROVES the sound?
I apologize if I've misunderstood. If, however, I haven't, your statement is daft.

 

That's not what I said but I suppose that's possible too!, posted on April 11, 2014 at 17:56:45
Depends on the condition of the master - some didn't age so well you know.

IME - digital recordings of old vinyl usually sounds better than later CD reissues and later vinyl reissues as well.

With newer music, say after 1995, it's a wash.

There are plenty of exceptions.

But assuming everything is equal which would be preferable? LOL - when is everything really equal?

 

Converted to English, posted on April 11, 2014 at 21:46:27
gtfsr
Audiophile

Posts: 253
Joined: August 21, 2012



Why Us compressed digital sound so annoying
50 years ago, music still had a bounce sound. Today, digital sound is compressed so much that it overwhelmed
the brain. Thus MP3 music and mobile phone calls are annoying.
By Thomas youth


Underground music quality?
Researchers are now looking into the brain to maximize the enjoyment of digital music
Until ten minutes running the conference call with colleagues from overseas, quite a few participants are
distracted and show signs of fatigue. Studies show that this often is due to the poor sound quality.
Are sounds affected, which has a measurable effect on the brain - even if we do not perceive the transfer
subjectively disturbed.
Researchers at the Technical University of Berlin to Benjamin Blankertz have examined how people respond
to gaps in the transmission or audio signals in low quality. You have test persons words and whole sentences
played that were transferred times the highest possible sound quality , sometimes in poor quality,
disturbed by background noise or by compression. This is common in digital music or transfer of mobile calls .
"Even if the subjects subjectively could make no difference between the original and the disturbed signal .
's Brain was still different activities the stronger the interference was pronounced ,
the more these activations were " Jan- Niklas Antons , researcher says at the TU Berlin.
The process thus seems to play on pre-conscious level. The effects can be directly observed in the brain :
In bad tone auditory areas are not just like when listening usual right and left active,
but also almost all of the central areas .
Fast tired, more stress
The synapses in the brain unconsciously activated fire it more often than would the sounds arrive at the
high quality head.
"This leads to a decreased attention , lets the recipient can ermüdenund faster also lead to stress," says Anton .
Is about the bad phone connection to a call center , the staff will tire quickly subside his attention quickly .
If the poor sound consciously perceived , should the caller show a reaction and join the conversation with
negative emotions.
Captures the recipient namely the interference of a transmission , and the frontal area of his brain with emotional
and cognitive processing is active. Even the Berlin researchers have studied .
" This so-called text -to-speech software has been used , the texts written automatically translated into language
and she reads . The poorer the quality , the more negative the subject rated the situation emotionally ," says Anton .
But it always depends on the context. Who, instead of two hours with colleagues via video conference to discuss a faulty line , chatting an equally long time with inferior sound quality with friends, is thus significantly less stressed .
Brain has to work more
In unconscious as conscious perception of poor sound quality so the brain is particularly active. But why? "
In the brain, on the signal is analyzed , and there will tapped cognitive contexts. It needs more work , therefore, if ,
for example, the caller difficult to understand. Too, it tries gaps created by disturbances or compression of the
audio signal to close. invoked the duration and leads to fatigue , "says Anton .
The results can be "probably transmitted to the listening to music ," says Anthony, "who exposes himself long
time digital , highly compressed music , for example in mp3 low bit rate , is also likely to become tired and
emotionally react negatively . "
Could so tiring two hours listening to mp3 music motorists faster? Basically, this is not ruled out ,
Anton wants so far but do not go . Other factors , such as the monotony while driving, likely in his opinion,
have a greater impact .
Subconscious mind hears with
Nevertheless, the effects of lack of sound quality when listening to music are of interest : first,
music recordings are often packaged as a digital MP3 file before , on the other hand they are already taken losses.
Compression works by sounds that have no influence on the perception of the listener away.
Awareness is difficult to discern a difference. But the subconscious is not fooled , the brain still tries permanently
to close the gaps.
"Besides music recordings are basically compact, the dynamic range has been reduced considerably .
Thereby, the volume level has shifted markedly upwards ," says Rolf Schmitz, Dolby ,
was responsible for the mobile business. Nuances are covered , thinned out the sound.
This brings the brain to be activated , which leads to fatigue.
End came with transistor radio
In the 50s music still had a bounce sound , already playing on transistor radios but has flattened him.
Taken to the extreme it is streaming to smartphones not only provide the built-in boxes little power ,
also have audio files are compressed for transmission over the radio path even further.
That music is already tuned to the emergence , Schmitz does not believe , however : "Most of the top ten titles,
the beats and the voice dominate but that does not mean that composers in the music so that it particularly
suitable for playback on small . speakers is . "
Finally, should sound reasonably well not only on the cell phone music,
but also for high-quality audio systems in clubs, in the car or on headphones .
Apart from compressed and lossy sounds also solves Music from irritation in the brain that has emerged on the synthesizer or computer. This results in a study by Professor Theo Geisel found at the Max Planck Institute for
Dynamics and Self-Organization . "The special thing of electronically created or post-processed music is that it is possible beats set extremely smoothly and precisely . And they can be positioned on a place in the music piece
exact and at will" , explains Holger Hennig, who was involved in the study and now as physicists at
Harvard University operates. However, such precision is anything but natural " .
A professional percussionist soaked in his punches - measured at a given by a metronome -
ten to 20 milliseconds from the time he is a little faster, sometimes a little slower ," said Hennig .
Randomly interspersed deviations
" The instruments , much has happened . Synthesizer can sound very natural , and drum machines form the
naturally occurring variations in the beats quite well after ," said Schmitz from Dolby .
However, scatters the software is usually a random deviations .
That does not help much , since the natural variations are not randomly distributed, but follow a pattern .
" The temporal shifts form self-similar structures : . . ,
The pattern in a particular played sequence is very similar to the pattern over the entire season Such fractals ,
there are often also found in nature , the section of a Farnblatts about looks similar to the whole fern leaf "
says Hennig .
Only when a software follows this pattern , the music comes the recipients good. "
In a test have volunteers pieces of music , in which a software deviations from the regular clock distributed
purely accidental evaluated as worse. Such purely random distribution is implemented in many softwares.
The jerky then very and sounds quite bumpy ," said Hennig, " humanized electronic music ,
in which our software the deviations has controlled for a natural pattern ,
on the other hand rated significantly better. "
The program could make it sound natural subsequently as an MP3 music stored .
Lossless Music for consumers
This also shows that the brain is particularly active in bad humanized music, especially the limbic system ,
are processed in the feelings. Ask experts in music production states that a person responsible for the
compression software the recipient do not like , it is not used " .
Such codecs undergone very extensive listening tests and analyzes.
The ultimate test is the listening experience of the consumer, and that has to be right," says Schmitz .
Consumers also can do a lot for it and dispense about to MP3 music. Amazon's Cloud Player ,
iTunes and many special services such as Linn Records , 2L , Naim and HIGHRESAUDIO offer virtually
loss-free music to download.
The resolution of these files , the gradation of the digital storage of sounds is 24 bit and are often higher than CDs.
And the sampling frequency , the number of times the signal is sampled ,
with 96 or even reaches 192 kilohertz peaks . This man can perceive only 16 kilohertz - at least consciously .
Perhaps the brain works still quite unconsciously more to fill the gaps in the scan.
The researchers want to find out in further studies.
Subject of the research is also the subject of " habituation " .
Scientists want to find out if people can get used to inferior sound quality.
When it comes to conscious awareness , it has already been proven ,
but it could possibly also apply unconscious Rezipieren .
Some researchers suggest that the brains of people who hear already as a teenager only MP3 music,
later do not want to fill the gaps in the compressed sounds and remain completely untouched by poor quality.

 

listen for yourself....., posted on April 12, 2014 at 07:53:56
mikel
Audiophile

Posts: 2773
Joined: July 4, 2000
.....to hirez digital and tape on a regular basis.

I do in my system......and while I enjoy hirez digital quite a bit and have 5 terabytes of dsd and 2xdsd files that I listen to often, my 1/4" and 1/2" master tapes are sonically better on my 2 Studer A-820's.

like morricab mentions; you simply hear much farther into the music with tape. quite a bit more detail on the tape. and if you compare a hirez dub of an Lp to a tape dub of the same Lp it is not close. the hirez dub (even 2xdsd) misses something and the tape does not. you need an appropriately capable tape deck of course.

mikel

 

RE: Noise "uncorrelated with the signal", posted on April 12, 2014 at 09:03:14
Are our brains so good at ignoring "uncorrelated" background noises? Why bother with noise-filtering power conditioners then?

What about the frequency range(s) in which these uncorrelated noises occur? Would our brains be better at ignoring certain types of noises because of the frequencies they reside in?

 

RE: "30 ips tape is still the best medium", posted on April 12, 2014 at 12:29:45
"And yet it is still considered to be far better sounding than all but the very best digital...If not better than ANY digital. "

You mean can be right - not is?


"The truth is that one can easily hear sound well below the noise floor of the tape machine because that noise is uncorrelated with the signal and your brain knows how to ignore as not being part of the music."

Ok and noise that correlates well with the signal is often mistaken as resolution.....

 

Thanks for posting, it's been an interesting discussion., posted on April 12, 2014 at 12:47:16
And no, we didn't come to any conclusions but I learned a lot.

Traditionally, I listen to LP's when I really want to hear music and play CD's for background noise.

As we all know, the LP's and CD's that we eventually buy are the end of the line. We have no way of knowing how they've been treated and handled from the studio to the pressing plant. That really makes it difficult to evaluate the sonic qualities of each on their own merits without a lot of dedicated testing.

I have both LP's and CD's that sound like they were recorded on a portable cassette player. But a great LP just seems to have that extra something that is difficult to quantify. I don’t have many CD’s that make me sit up and pay attention; it seems less frequent than with LP’s.

But I'm not that fussy about it. If it doesn't sound that great I just figure that it is what it is, and can go along with that. It's all about the music after all. I would never bother trying to find a better sounding copy of any particular LP if I already have it - I would rather find something new that I don't already have.

What I find interesting is now that I'm recording LP's in DSD format and then converting to 24/96 FLAC, I don't seem to hear any difference from the original LP. But, and a big but, I haven't gone to any lengths to do any serious testing to see if and what any subtle difference could be. Why?

Because I just don't care that much about it. I wanted to be able to play LP's or CD's in digital format with a music server and a storage medium that's reasonably portable and I now have that.

I find recently with the convenience of being able to select music and add to a playlist whatever I want to listen to I don’t seem to be worried so much about where the original file came from, LP or CD.

Thanks for participating.

 

Obviously..., posted on April 13, 2014 at 08:08:59
.., most of us would have no choice but to take your word for it.

Stuff that legends are made of, I guess...

 

RE: CDs that sound "thin, papier mache-ish, lifeless, blah, etc...", posted on April 13, 2014 at 08:24:37
Too many pebbles and clocks in the room can make CDs sound that way. Remove them all, listen for yourself...

 

RE: Noise "uncorrelated with the signal", posted on April 13, 2014 at 13:22:20
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9181
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005


Why bother with noise-filtering power conditioners then?

Because if you look at measurements if the power supply noise is high in some designs you will get noise related IM harmonics in your distortion FFT. So, the noise becomes part of the signal and is no longer uncorrelated with the music signal.

As to the rest I don't have any ready answers for you.

 

FACT and, posted on April 13, 2014 at 13:45:10
Ross
Audiophile

Posts: 1814
Joined: January 24, 2000
I have created Redbook CDr copies of vinyl that sound better than commercial CD versions of the same title. I used a very modest system to accomplish this. AR-XA, Shure M97, Modified Hafler DH101- MAudio 24/96 USB outboard ADAC, WinXP computer, Audacity.

The salient point to consider is if your vinyl related equipment is capable of greater than Redbook level resolution.

Best, Ross

 

Good point, Ross., posted on April 13, 2014 at 14:09:14
On another post and a related topic some time ago I had a comment on exactly that, how the turntable and cartridge can color the recording with innumerable variations in resolution and tonal characteristics.

But then, that was always true - for any recording of anything. The people I feel for are those who bought the USB turntables so they could record their LP's.

 

Page processed in 0.052 seconds.