Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 7, 2015 at 14:15:34
fantja Audiophile Posts: 15524 Location: Alabama Joined: September 11, 2010	Thanks! for sharing. Interesting site and article. I tend to agree that over-sampling could hurt the playback. I prefer 16/44.

Another "Science-tologist." He focuses on steady-state frequencies and disregards transients, posted on October 7, 2015 at 14:38:04

John Marks
Manufacturer

Posts: 7806
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I.
Joined: April 23, 2000

There is much anecdotal data suggesting that most humans can hear above 15kHz (his anatomical cut-away deceptively suggests we cannot hear above 15kHz--par for the 'Science-tological' course) by means of recognizing transients and not steady state sine waves.

So, Sonny, go and have fun with your sine waves. Some of us are dealing with real music.

That said, I myself believe on the basis of (in some real sense) having been in on digital audio's launch as a consumer product, that for the "shock of recognition," bit depth is more important than sampling rate, and let me be a sincere heretic:

24bit/44.1 kHz is probably all most music requires.

STRANGELY ENOUGH, many supremely experienced listeners believe that data-compressed "Mastered for iTunes" sounds better than Red Book CD--given source material that is good enough.

192kHz is not a panacea. A truly great 24/96 analog-to-digital converter will knock the socks off a 24/192 ADC from the bargin bins at Sweetwater Sound.

Simple-minded scientism gets the state of the art advanced not at all. I have no explanation why a slender few SACDs or DSD files sound so great, give the huge amount of suckage in that paradigm. But I know what I am hearing.

Showing a cartoon cut-away of an inner ear and some phony arm-waving about THE THRESHOLD OF PAIN impresses me not in the least.

Case not closed.

PS: Steve Jobs is dead, I hear!

ATB,

John Marks

High Resolution? A recording engineer told me mp3 is all you need... nt, posted on October 7, 2015 at 15:18:02
oldmkvi Audiophile Posts: 10583 Joined: April 12, 2002	/

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 7, 2015 at 15:37:08

Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

And they could be right.

In the case where a recording master has dynamic range of less than 16 bits and a frequency response less that the maximum covered with a 44.1K sampling rate and where the ADC and the associated DAC at 24/192 creates more noise and high frequency artifact than that of Redbook CD, perhaps yes.

Maybe.

Will a recording played using the 'Worlds Best' 16/44.1 DAC sound better than the same original track up-sampled and played back on the worlds cheapest POS 24/192 DAC?

Maybe.

Am I responding to a TROLL Post?

Could be!

First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 7, 2015 at 15:52:42
geezerrocket	Trolling? Christ; I just posted a article a friend sent me. Easy - not everything is, or should be a pissing match.

John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 7, 2015 at 16:33:36

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

. . . than sampling rate increases are. (EDIT: I mean more audible as improvements to the sound quality.) And although I'm in favor 24/96 hi-rez recording/playback myself, some of the best-engineered recordings I've EVER heard are on Nishimura DVD-Audios at 24/48.

And BTW, the guy did touch on the subject of transients and rise-times in his video in what I thought was a convincing fashion. He also spoke about square waves (not just sine waves) in the video too.

Frankly, I think the guy is generally correct, even though I personally favor 24/96. No reason to be dismissive ("Sonny"). The anecdotal data you refer to is just that.

RE: Another "Science-tologist." He focuses on steady-state frequencies and disregards transients, posted on October 7, 2015 at 19:26:13

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

There are definitely poor recordings that sound better after some of their "information" has been stripped. One way of doing this is to encode them into MP3 or another lossless format. Another way is to use psychoacoustic noise reduction software, such as that capable of removing tape hiss and related defects from music without changing the tonality of notes. (Example: iZotope RX noise reduction.)

There are tradeoffs involved. Some aspects of the recording are improved at the expense of other aspects. These conflicting tradeoffs do not exist if one starts with a good recording.

There are some really bad recordings that sound even better if they are simply switched off.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: Another "Science-tologist." He focuses on steady-state frequencies and disregards transients, posted on October 7, 2015 at 19:46:51

Jaundiced Ear

"There are some really bad recordings that sound even better if they are simply switched off."

For me that's pretty much anything with Neil Young in it, well recorded or not. The guy's whiny voice just grates on me.

On the other hand, I've many a terrible recording that I couldn't live without, but I'm a sucker for old time "big band" music. Tommy Dorsey, Cab Calloway, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Satchmo, the Andrews Sisters, and the rest of their ilk all have a welcome in my listening room.

To each their own, I guess!

Edit: added a sample of the kind of music I'm talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A2pRVyBmOY

I Think 16/44.1 Sounds Better than 24/192......., posted on October 7, 2015 at 19:49:25

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

The best 16/44.1 playback I've heard doesn't just sound better than the best 24/192 I've heard, it trounces 24/192..... Same goes for 16/44.1 vs SACD, for that matter..... I could never go more than half an hour listening high rez, without feeling downright sick.......

This is the main reason why I've never migrated to higher resolution digital audio formats. Vinyl and CD are my main formats, and likely to remain that way 'til I die.

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 7, 2015 at 19:54:44
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 37333 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	"I tend to agree that over-sampling could hurt the playback. I prefer 16/44." Oversampling and high resolution digital audio playback are different things..... Oversampling is mainly used as the means to apply digital filtering for 16/44 playback. The oversample rate might be similar in some cases, but not the same as playing native 24/192 files at full resolution.

RE: Another "Science-tologist." He focuses on steady-state frequencies and disregards transients, posted on October 7, 2015 at 20:01:00

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

In theory, you are correct about the "steady state".... I think the reason why high-resolution digital audio has never caught on is the added RFI emissions, rendering the playback unlistenable to a lot of people.

Note there is no scientific proof of the RFI/listenability relationship, but only because no formal study has ever been undertaken (to my knowledge). This is only a long-time suspicion of mine, in which I've never had an experience to the contrary.

RE: John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 7, 2015 at 20:04:26
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 37333 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	The best digital audio I've ever heard were those Telarc Soundstream recordings, which was 16/50 transcribed to vinyl. Before anyone had even heard of "sampling" or "jitter".

Nice tune. Thanks for the link. nt, posted on October 7, 2015 at 20:04:26
Tony Lauck Audiophile Posts: 13629 Location: Vermont Joined: November 12, 2007	Tony Lauck "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Nice tune. Thanks for the link. nt, posted on October 7, 2015 at 20:24:32
Jaundiced Ear	You're welcome! For all of the limitations of Redbook, I sure wish it and decent microphones had been available 100 years ago. JE

RE: John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 7, 2015 at 20:29:21

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Thomas Stockham understood dither, specifically TPDF dither, which was a trade secret of his at the time. Also, the machines were kept in good calibration. Also, 50 Khz was not obviously inferior to the tape machines of the time, unlike 44.1 kHz. Even so, there were more than a few audiophiles who did not care for these recordings in LP form. I don't think his digital recorders were nearly as good as 30 IPS master tapes.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: Nice tune. Thanks for the link. nt, posted on October 7, 2015 at 21:00:48
Tony Lauck Audiophile Posts: 13629 Location: Vermont Joined: November 12, 2007	Looked like one of the mic's on the video might have been an RCA 44-BX ribbon microphone. Not a bad microphone for its day and probably capable of better sound that what was on the video. Do you know the date of the performance in the video? Tony Lauck "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Nice tune. Thanks for the link. nt, posted on October 7, 2015 at 21:06:27
Jaundiced Ear	"Do you know the date of the performance in the video?" Sorry, no. Going by the fashions they are wearing I'd say late '40s. JE

nope....hirez is better than 44.1 at the top of the food chain. below that too many variables to be certain., posted on October 7, 2015 at 21:20:09

mikel
Audiophile

Posts: 2773
Joined: July 4, 2000

Ivan,

it was fun seeing you at RMAF.....too bad we were too late for the Magico room.

not true.....44.1 does not sound better. but I would also agree that the native resolution of the recording can limit what resolution sounds best. but assuming some level of higher rez than redbook to start out, or starting out as analog, then the higher rez native resolution should sound better. I prefer almost always to hear any recording in it's native format. which includes tape, direct to disc Lp, and any digital.

I have what is said to be the best PCM dac, the Trinity Dac, and I can say unequivocally that while the redbook is superlative, higher rez.....88, 96, 176, 192 is better.....as you go up the steps better and better.....generally.

the Trinity dac has easily the finest sounding redbook I have yet heard. it overcomes all the inherent artifacts of PCM playback and takes it to another level. as a 15 year very strong proponent of dsd and a person with 3000+ CD's sitting dormant 'for years' until 6 weeks ago, I was blown away by hearing redbook on the Trinity dac. it changed my world view of things digital. but....and this is a big but......it takes a very high effort to overcome PCM's artifacts. dsd is much easier to approach optimization.

I have 7 terabytes of PCM, and another 8 terabytes of dsd, and so I have plenty of data to have a pretty good idea of how this works. I also have a server set-up which is pretty SOTA, the CAPS v4 Pipeline with additional hot-rodded LPS units added.

last month I ripped 1500 of my 3000 CD's.....and after I recover from all that i'll rip the remaining 1500. I'm delighted to be reacquainted with my old CD friends in their shiney new clothes. lots of great music which now sounds so much better.

cheers,

mikel

Trinity dac

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 7, 2015 at 21:54:38

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

Where to start?

Bandwidth limited input signal? Of course the digital system is perfect.

But it's not perfect vs. the un-bandwidth limited input signal, only the bandwidth limited signal.

He never even talks about phase shift in the band pass caused by the analog anti-aliasing filter or how those phase shifts would be moved up, further away from what we can hear, if the sampling rate was increased.

"An anti-aliasing filter (AAF) is a filter used BEFORE a signal sampler to restrict the bandwidth of a signal to approximately or completely satisfy the sampling theorem over the band of interest."

He says the only thing a higher bit rate is good for is lowering the noise floor?????

16 bit is good for 65536 different signal levels.

24 bit is good for 16,777,216 different signal levels.

So is he saying that sample amplitude accuracy is only important to the noise floor?

Who is this guy?

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

RE: nope....hirez is better than 44.1 at the top of the food chain. below that too many variables to be certain., posted on October 7, 2015 at 21:59:16
ahendler Audiophile Posts: 5151 Location: San Antonio, Texas Joined: January 24, 2003	What are you listening to DSD with. I know the Trinity Dac does not do DSD. I have the Audio-GD Master 7 which uses the same 1704 chips. I have only heard DSD downloads on my Mytek Stereo 192. PCM on my Master 7 is wbetter than DSD on the Mytek. I have never liked DSD or SACD's Alan

RE: John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 7, 2015 at 22:04:31
ahendler Audiophile Posts: 5151 Location: San Antonio, Texas Joined: January 24, 2003	Yes, they were and are great recordings. I especially love the Firebird Alan

RE: John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 7, 2015 at 22:06:59
ahendler Audiophile Posts: 5151 Location: San Antonio, Texas Joined: January 24, 2003	Telarc in those days had great orchestras and excellent engineering. We recorded at my studio in 30ips which was very, very good but the Soundstream was very close Alan

RE: nope....hirez is better than 44.1 at the top of the food chain. below that too many variables to be certain., posted on October 7, 2015 at 22:08:06
mikel Audiophile Posts: 2773 Joined: July 4, 2000	as of this moment I'm using both the Playback Design MPS-5 and the Lampizator Golden Gate dsd 'only' dac. the MPS-5 is a pure dsd dac which does not convert dsd to PCM. same with the GG. the MPS-5 and the GG both do 2xdsd; I have 2-3 terabytes of 2xdsd. the GG also does Quad dsd, although I don't yet have any Quad dsd files. I've only had the GG since Sunday; it is still breaking in. mikel

Crap mastering and recoring, posted on October 7, 2015 at 22:47:27
Frihed89 Audiophile Posts: 15703 Location: Copenhagen Joined: March 21, 2005	produce crap at any level of resolution. Should we argue about which digital format sounds worse, given the amount of crap digital files out there?

RE: nope....hirez is better than 44.1 at the top of the food chain. below that too many variables to be certain., posted on October 7, 2015 at 23:00:53

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

The technical explanation behind the Lianotec design is somewhat fuzzy to me.... I guess I'd have to listen to one in order to find out if it really does something special.

I think the notion that a 384 kHz native signal being oversampled in order to get rid of analog post filtering altogether seems nice on paper (and I think isn't unique to this particular design), but the potential RFI being passed through unfettered at such high sample rates kind of makes me cringe...... Not to mention potential havoc it might cause with some solid state electronics.

http://www.trinity-ed.de/typo/index.php?id=18

Article Itself Has Some Fallacies......, posted on October 7, 2015 at 23:51:47

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

Will note some of them.......

Similarly, many non-DSP people would look at the following:

And say, "Ugh!" It might appear that a sampled signal represents higher frequency analog waveforms badly. Or, that as audio frequency increases, the sampled quality falls and frequency response falls off, or becomes sensitive to input phase.

Looks are deceiving. These beliefs are incorrect!

Only in the context that it's a continuous (or steady-state) sine wave, and a classic "sinc" filter is capable of reconstructing it "perfectly"..... (A time-resolute filter would still have some of the "jagged" artifacts.) Note that the closer the sine wave signal approaches half the sample frequency, the "longer" the filter must be in order to fully reconstruct it.

But with transients, the same "sinc" filter introduces "ringing" to the signal. So it really isn't perfect.

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required.

Once again, this is only true with continuous (or periodic) signals..... It is NOT true with transients often found in the original analog music signal.

Sampling doesn't affect frequency response or phase.

If it's not filtered, the signal modulates, the average amplitude is lower than the original analog, the frequency response is rolled off.

It does not affect phase if linear phase filtering is utilized, but it *does* affect instantaneous phase of time-resolute filtering or no filtering is used.

The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.

Yet again, only the case for periodic signals. Not for non-periodic signals that occur in music.

The bit wordlength in the article is mostly correct, but I disagree that dither with 16 bits is a viable alternative to 18-24 bits tracking the signal accurately. I personally think the ideal resolution for digital audio would be 60 kHz sample rate at 18 to 20 bits.

Todd - I think some of those "fallacies" are covered in the video [nt], posted on October 8, 2015 at 00:21:05
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

What Video? [nt], posted on October 8, 2015 at 00:24:43
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 37333 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000

Sorry - here's the link, posted on October 8, 2015 at 00:29:42

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

http://downloads.xiph.org/video/Digital_Show_and_Tell-720p.w

RE: Sorry - here's the link, posted on October 8, 2015 at 01:24:59

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

I saw that video..... (I thought you were referring to a different video.) It was a nice demonstration, actually..... But it still doesn't address transient signals.....

Note that the digital filtering used during that demo was a classic "sinc" filtering, and the "Gibbs' phenomenon" being the ringing, which actually *is* introduced by the digital filter, since it convolves the raw digital signal with that (time-truncated or "windowed") "sinc" function.

A "time resolute" filter would "violate" Nyquist.... But many, including myself, believe it's truer to the initial analog music signal, prior to digitization. (Nyquist must be met strictly during A/D. During D/A, it's not critical.)

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 8, 2015 at 01:45:21

morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9180
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

"When healthy ears combine with highly trained discrimination abilities, I would call that person a golden ear. Even so, below-average hearing can also be trained to notice details that escape untrained listeners. Golden ears are more about training than hearing beyond the physical ability of average mortals."

Probably the most misunderstood point that people slamming "golden ears" don't get. Nevermind the fact that actual hearing probably also varies greatly, the training and recognition is the main thing...

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 8, 2015 at 02:02:16

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

That was one thing most "audio engineering" types totally get wrong, but the one here got it right.

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=general&n=54179

RE: Article Itself Has Some Fallacies......, posted on October 8, 2015 at 02:55:54

Dave_K

Only in the context that it's a continuous (or steady-state) sine wave, and a classic "sinc" filter is capable of reconstructing it "perfectly"..... (A time-resolute filter would still have some of the "jagged" artifacts.) Note that the closer the sine wave signal approaches half the sample frequency, the "longer" the filter must be in order to fully reconstruct it.
But with transients, the same "sinc" filter introduces "ringing" to the signal. So it really isn't perfect.

This is not true if the original signal is band limited to less than fc/2. Ringing shows up in the impulse response of a reconstruction filter because the impulse response is not a band limited signal. If there is no content in the signal at fc/2, the reconstruction filter will not add any ringing.

If transients in the original music signal have content above the cutoff frequency of the anti-aliasing filter in the ADC, the anti-aliasing filter will produce ringing. But if the digital signal is band limited to below the cutoff frequency of the reconstruction filter, the reconstruction filter does not add any additional ringing. That condition is hard to meet with Redbook because the transition bands of both filters are crammed in between 20 and 22 KHz. But it's easy to achieve at higher sample rates.

Once again, this is only true with continuous (or periodic) signals..... It is NOT true with transients often found in the original analog music signal.

Wrong. There is no requirement for periodicity, only band-limiting. If the transients are band limited, they can be properly captured by sampling.

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 03:21:47

Dave_K

Bandwidth limited input signal? Of course the digital system is perfect.

But it's not perfect vs. the un-bandwidth limited input signal, only the bandwidth limited signal.

Exactly, which introduces the possibility of hearing the effect of the anti-aliasing filter. Of course, he would then tell you that it's impossible to hear a brick wall anti-aliasing filter because the cutoff frequency is above the magic 20 KHz. But yet we hear differences between different converters. And he would say no, you don't, and demand a rigorously conducted DBT that proves it. And so goes the cycle of debate.

He never even talks about phase shift in the band pass caused by the analog anti-aliasing filter or how those phase shifts would be moved up, further away from what we can hear, if the sampling rate was increased.

Those phase shifts don't really exist in modern oversampling ADCs because the anti-aliasing filter is a FIR type. Nevertheless, I think every audiophile who has experienced a lot of different digital audio products over the years would agree that every anti-aliasing and reconstruction filter sounds a little bit different. It may not be the phase shift, but there is something about steep filtering in or near our hearing range that sounds artificial to our ears.

So is he saying that sample amplitude accuracy is only important to the noise floor?

As long as there is dithering, he is correct on that point. Without dithering, the quantization errors are correlated with the signal and become distortion. With dithering, the quantization errors are decorrelated from the signal and become noise.

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 8, 2015 at 03:26:32

danlaudionut
Audiophile

Posts: 5480
Location: Schenectady
Joined: June 6, 2002

I said the same thing on the Cable Asylum.

DanL

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=cables&n=167614

RE: nope....hirez is better than 44.1 at the top of the food chain. below that too many variables to be certain., posted on October 8, 2015 at 05:35:02

mikel
Audiophile

Posts: 2773
Joined: July 4, 2000

nothing 'nice on paper' about it. it is the real deal. it is by far the quietest, cleanest, most explosive redbook i have heard. vocals, pianos, any strings, horns, all sound great. super quiet backgrounds. amazing dynamic energy. yet zero edge or harshness.

i compare it favorably to state of the art dsd, vinyl and RTR tape in my system and it holds it's own like redbook never has before.

i realize that skepticism is the stock in trade of many. guilty till proven innocent when you can't connect the dots of your personal experience or technical understanding. benefit of the doubt is for others...not you.

here are 2 links which might help.....or not.

more detailed explanation....

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=238265&viewfull=1#post238265

how Trinity is different....

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC&p=244005&viewfull=1#post244005

sorry, don't know how to post links in audioasylem

YMMV, just my 2 cents, and all that.

mikel

RE: I Think 16/44.1 Sounds Better than 24/192......., posted on October 8, 2015 at 06:12:11
mikel Audiophile Posts: 2773 Joined: July 4, 2000	you just need a better reference for higher rez PCM..... mikel

I did not see a link to a video and would not have watched it anyway, posted on October 8, 2015 at 06:23:14
John Marks Manufacturer Posts: 7806 Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I. Joined: April 23, 2000	Too much like a North Korean Political Re-Education Camp. jm

Mikel and Ivan, turned away at the door of the Magico Room..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 07:18:17

Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

They SHOULD turn me away, You? I'd have let you in, set the room up again and given you a private demo! ;-)

Agree that the BEST Redbook CD could be surpassed by the BEST Hi Rez and yes, DSD from mic to speaker with no PCM conversion in between (Jared at Channel Classics certainly does the 'chicken right') would be the perfect world.

ALMOST as good as full analog chain mic to speaker via vinyl or 15 IPS tape. ;-)

At the end of the day, recording quality makes as much difference as playback technology IMNSHO. I can generally tell a great recording from a mediocre one just by streaming it over the internet.

Mostly. Hopefully I will someday find out for certain.

Envy you your Trinity DAC. Looks like you have four times the PCM1704U-K as I'll have soon (Audio-GD Master 11 on a slow boat from you know where). If it turns out to be even 25% as great at 5% the price, I'll be happy.

Keep your eye on Peter Q at Audio Note. Haven't spoken to him in a while but understand he still feels there is miles to go in Digital to Analog conversion via discrete resistor ladder DACs.

Wish him luck!

Great to to see you again and keep pushing the envelope!

First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

RE: Mikel and Ivan, turned away at the door of the Magico Room..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 07:26:04
ahendler Audiophile Posts: 5151 Location: San Antonio, Texas Joined: January 24, 2003	I got my Master 7 and my friend got his in 5 days Alan

They went on vacation just about the day I ordered mine...., posted on October 8, 2015 at 08:03:06

Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Chinese Holiday I didn't know about even living in San Francisco where Lunar New Year is a bigger deal than January 1.

I understand they are now quite busy clearing the backlog as the word is definitely getting out.

That said, the PCM1704U-K is still available from Mauser at about $60+ in large quantities (I put 150 in my 'cart' just to see if they would take the order and the do) so I don't thing there is any fear that King Wa will run out of chips.

First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

PCM1704U-K from Mauser

RE: John - I agree that bit depth increases seem to be more audible. . . , posted on October 8, 2015 at 08:13:40
fantja Audiophile Posts: 15524 Location: Alabama Joined: September 11, 2010	I concur- Chris. for hi-rez, I also prefer 24/96.

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 8, 2015 at 08:14:24
fantja Audiophile Posts: 15524 Location: Alabama Joined: September 11, 2010	My 1st CD spinner circa 1988, Sony ES, was 16-bit with 8X oversampling.

The "science" is not nearly as interesting as the results of the "listening test"... , posted on October 8, 2015 at 08:34:15
genungo	After reading that section of the article, whaddya think?

RE: The "science" is not nearly as interesting as the results of the "listening test"... , posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:00:05

geezerrocket

I agree that the science is not as interesting as the listening.

For me digital is useful when I'm running, driving, or hosting a dinner party.

When I actually want to sit in the sweet spot and listen; Only Vinyl will do.

Note: I have attended numerous shows and have heard many state of the art digital front ends having never heard one that could toe the line with a above average analog front end.......But that's me.

Never having experienced North Korean Political Re-Education. . . , posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:02:00

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

. . . I wouldn't know. (But I suspect it's not so much!)

But the link to the video is in my reply to Todd's post up above in this thread (in the unlikely event that you change your mind - LOL!).

Oh what the heck, here it is again:

http://downloads.xiph.org/video/Digital_Show_and_Tell-720p.w

Wow......., posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:18:44

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

Fifty-eight grand..... (According to The Absolute Sound report... Link below.) Didn't realize the price of this was in the ionosphere..... It *should* be the best DAC in the world............

This is a product you could charge admission for people to listen.....

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tas-at-rmaf-robert-

Yup - we're all different. As for me, I couldn't dump vinyl fast enough, posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:33:01
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	And yet even now, whenever I go to a dealer or a show, there will always be people who grab me by the lapels and, with a supernatural look in their eyes, mystically intone the word, "Vinyl!" - expecting that I too will thereby become a part of their resurrection rites. ;-)

"There was a demon that lived in the air." nt, posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:34:49
Jim Treanor Audiophile Posts: 2167 Location: Pacific Northwest Joined: June 1, 2003	. Jim

Yep, critical listening a learned skill...(nt), posted on October 8, 2015 at 09:45:14
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	(nt)

RE: Yup - we're all different. As for me, I couldn't dump vinyl fast enough, posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:09:44

geezerrocket

Exactly!

No different than;

1) Brunette vs Blonde
2) Thong vs Girdle (never mind - bad example)
3) Pie vs Cake
4) Coffee vs Tea
5) Ford vs Chevy
6) Tubes vs Transistors

I do love the convenience of digital and still think that the science is still in the 4th inning, where as vinyl is a very mature products that is pretty much in the bottom of the 9th.

I have had the same crazies grab me and bring me into lack luster vinyl rooms as well. We all here things a bit differently......

RE: Wow......., posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:24:46

mikel
Audiophile

Posts: 2773
Joined: July 4, 2000

that article references the 'old' Trinity dac which was a 3 chassis affair and is no longer made.

the newer one I have is a single chassis and it came out in late 2013.

I really don't know the exact list price as it's not imported into North America. it is around that same price area though.

I don't charge admission. you would be welcome to visit anytime to hear it. it is worth hearing to anyone who has an interest in the best possible redbook or PCM.

cheers,

mikel

RE: Article Itself Has Some Fallacies......, posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:26:34

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"This is not true if the original signal is band limited to less than fc/2."

True.... The problem is the original live music event is **never** band-limited.

"Ringing shows up in the impulse response of a reconstruction filter because the impulse response is not a band limited signal."

Wouldn't make any difference here..... Although the signal would "already" have ringing if band-limited with a (analog) brickwall filter.

"If there is no content in the signal at fc/2, the reconstruction filter will not add any ringing."

There shouldn't be any content right at Fs/2.... But there *is* ringing for content just below Fs/2. (The video link below bears this out.)

"If transients in the original music signal have content above the cutoff frequency of the anti-aliasing filter in the ADC, the anti-aliasing filter will produce ringing."

But if transients were band-limited, the ringing would already be present.... There is no free lunch here.

"But if the digital signal is band limited to below the cutoff frequency of the reconstruction filter, the reconstruction filter does not add any additional ringing."

Stress the word "additional"..... The signal under this circumstance would already have ringing prior to reconstruction.

"That condition is hard to meet with Redbook because the transition bands of both filters are crammed in between 20 and 22 KHz. But it's easy to achieve at higher sample rates."

Very true..... This is why I think 44.1 kHz sample rate isn't sufficient in regard to not being able to differentiate between the original non-band limited signal and the digitized one.

"Once again, this is only true with continuous (or periodic) signals..... It is NOT true with transients often found in the original analog music signal.

Wrong. There is no requirement for periodicity, only band-limiting. If the transients are band limited, they can be properly captured by sampling."

Once again, while true, I'm talking about the original analog signal, prior to any limiting being applied to it.

While the ear would not be able to differentiate an analog vs. digitized sine wave, the fact people have strong preferences for certain types of filtering (or no filtering) for 16/44 signals is evidence alone that the ear *can* differentiate variants of band-limiting from the transients in the music signal.

http://downloads.xiph.org/video/Digital_Show_and_Tell-720p.w

Joseph Audio asking for your vote for Best Sound of the Show... same difference, posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:37:06
John Marks Manufacturer Posts: 7806 Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of R.I. Joined: April 23, 2000	JUST KIDDING!!!!!! jm

Ah! Now that's something I can relate to! [nt] ;-), posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:51:37
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: Never having experienced North Korean Political Re-Education. . . , posted on October 8, 2015 at 11:06:00
Basslines Audiophile Posts: 373 Location: The Great White North Joined: October 22, 2003	Nobody has ever experienced it. The moment they decide you need it, they shoot you and feed you to the dogs!

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 11:49:04
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	I guess I don't understand "quantization". It seems to me the higher the bit rate the less quantization is needed and less dithering to keep the distortion low so less noise? Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

Nice musicv. I too am a fan of big band music . . , posted on October 8, 2015 at 12:48:14
DRam Audiophile Posts: 1309 Location: Montana Joined: July 30, 2005	Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Pete Fountain are favorites. Andrews Sisters also.

It says that participants from the Boston Audio Society could not reliably distinguish 16/44 from hi-rez..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 12:56:46
genungo	... in a blind listening test. This would seem to imply that hi-rez is not worse sounding than 16/44 (not better sounding either). How many people here even read that part of the article?

I read it and I dismissed it, posted on October 8, 2015 at 13:00:12
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	If I recall correctly, many of the "hi-rez" selections in that test were just standard rez recordings in hi-rez containers. If that's true, then no wonder people couldn't tell a difference.

Gosh! Do you think that's what John meant? [nt] ;-), posted on October 8, 2015 at 13:02:05
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

I feel the same way, Chris..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 13:04:07

genungo

... when I hear people "mystically intone" about the superiority of hi-rez digital over plain Jane 16/44. I agree that hi-rez can sound good, I think it sounds slightly better than redbook sometimes, but the minor diffs are nothing to wax romantic about.

Hi-rez digital is "Flavor of the Month", as far as I'm concerned - at least at this point in time.

If you listen almost exclusively to classical music (as I believe you do), you are one of the few who are consistently being treated to well-recorded audiophile productions of acoustical music wherein slight advances in resolution are most noticeable. Other, more popular genres of music are not very often handled with the same care in production. So, unless you like classical music an awful lot you are probably wasting your time worrying about the latest in hi-rez tech - at this point in time at least.

I believe that there are more important issues to consider in the making of a good sounding recording than detail resolution, and that is why I'll look for the most musically satisfying production rather than the one with the highest resolution. If the "best" musical production seems to be on vinyl, I'll take it. If the best production is on redbook, I'll take that one. If the best is on hi-rez digital, I'll (eventually, not immediately) take that one too.

All that said, in many (not all!) cases there is something about the *resolution* and overall sound quality of a recording cut on vinyl. Despite all of vinyl's problems, what I think I'm hearing on a good vinyl record is a natural sense of liveliness, "flow", and atmosphere that I've rarely heard with other formats. I realize that I'm probably listening to distortions of various types but the overall effect is oftentimes a very pleasing one, for me. All I can do is to recommend that everyone give good vinyl a try sometime (while they are trying out everything else there is to be tried, of course).

Possible..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 13:05:41
genungo	Anything is possible, I guess.

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 13:09:48

Dave_K

It seems to me the higher the bit rate the less quantization is needed and less dithering to keep the distortion low so less noise?

Right.

With truncation, the magnitude of the quantization error is < 1 LSB, and with rounding, it's < LSB/2. And to linearize the quantization process, the required dither is at the level of the LSB. The smaller the LSB, the lower the dither noise. More bits = lower digital noise floor.

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 14:11:08
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	The truth is I don't understand what the quantization process is. How can the amplitude of each sample be made correct without an infinite number of bits? How does the system know how much to "fudge" (and in which direction) the amplitude of each sample? Thanks. Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

When I hear about..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 14:19:39
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...the BAS and double blind testing to confirm someone's scientific theories about how music sounds, I suspect it's BS. If there is a difference, experienced listeners will be able to hear it. In this case many do and some don't. Like all things audio - to each his own.

I did some reading, posted on October 8, 2015 at 15:22:39

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

Let's see if I have this right.

To me the quantization process is not a process at all, it's the outcome of a less than perfect system.

When you digitize an analog signal, while using a word length that is less than infinite, quantization takes place and creates distortion.

Dithering will lower the harmonic distortion orders down into an increasing noise floor than has been deemed to be acceptable.

So now back to what I was trying to say.

In absolute terms, the higher the bit rate the less, distortion causing, amplitude inaccuracies there will be.

It begs the question, how high of a bit rate would it take to listen to the stream without dithering while having acceptable HD numbers?

Tre'

Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 8, 2015 at 16:23:37

Mr_Steady
Audiophile

Posts: 2042
Location: North Florida
Joined: August 19, 2014

Let me paraphrase the conversation between Neil Young and Steve Jobs;

NY: Why do you sell music in such an awful format like Mp3? Why don't you try to sell some better quality music? At least let people choose.

SJ: I don't sell music. I sell convenience. You want a audiophile download site? You create one. You're rich, and you have a big name, and know people. You do it yourself!

NY: Okay, I will!

And that's what he did. Don't put much stock in Mr. Young? Put more in this guy with his own blog?

I notice the author reduces everything down to dynamic range for bit depth, and highest frequency sampled for sample rate, just like many others. So with hi-res you get dynamic range you aren't going to use, and higher frequencies that you can't hear.

Tre' has already mentioned the huge increase in loudness levels with an increase in bit depth. I have read that higher sampling rate also means more samples per second. Not just the high frequency content. DSD has over 2 million samples per second. Does it come down to Frames Per Second kind of like film? I don't know. I do know it took more than 100 years to supercede the Edison film projector, and just recently at that.

Step back and think about records. They started as wax cylinders, and then shellac 78rpm, then vinyl 33rmp. Does anybody really think that the progress in the digitization of analog music ceased in 1983?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 16:28:33

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

"Exactly, which introduces the possibility of hearing the effect of the anti-aliasing filter. "

"Those phase shifts don't really exist in modern oversampling ADCs because the anti-aliasing filter is a FIR type."

I didn't even realize that these filters were active filters. (I assume they have to be to be phase accurate)

So I don't take hearing the effects of the filter as a possibility, I take it as a certainty. Not the filter, but the op-amp.

I am amazed that CD's sound as good as they do.

Tre'

Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:20:18
Mr_Steady Audiophile Posts: 2042 Location: North Florida Joined: August 19, 2014	>"Not the filter, but the op-amp." Would you explain that some please? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!

RE: Wow......., posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:25:14
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 37333 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	I wonder if this product was at RMAF........

RE: "There was a demon that lived in the air." nt, posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:31:17
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 37333 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	There was a sports talk host in Cleveland named Mike Trivisonno. One night, he says to a caller, "You're on the air." The caller then says "I'm on the air?".... Trivisonno then says, "No, you are really in the air.... "

RE: When I hear about..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:42:56
Jim Treanor Audiophile Posts: 2167 Location: Pacific Northwest Joined: June 1, 2003	Yep. Jim

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:48:12

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"It seems to me the higher the bit rate the less quantization is needed and less dithering to keep the distortion low so less noise?"

The word length also reduces quantization.

What dither noise does is make the least-significant bit (LSB) switch randomly to signal levels or resolutions at amplitudes less than the LSB. When played back, with classical "sinc" filtering, the resultant level of the analog signal is close to the original signal below the LSB. Without the dither, the LSB would not be triggered randomly at all, the quantization error would then increase as a result.

With longer word lengths (ex: 20 bits instead of 16), with the extra bits, the levels "below the LSB" are now handled by those extra bits, the low level signal is tracked more accurately than without the extra bits and using dither.

RE: Crap mastering and recording, posted on October 8, 2015 at 17:55:05
genungo	Yep.

RE: I feel the same way, Chris..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 18:04:25

DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009

| unless you like classical music an awful lot

I like classical music an awful lot.

I find hi-res to be indistinguishable from 16/44.

I also find 320 kbps streaming to be indistinguishable as well, at least it's way below my threshold for caring.

I find an enormous difference in sound quality and texture among various recordings of the same piece: the mere audio advantages of browsing through many albums through streaming services is tremendous.

Add the novelty of finding random new things.

Digital rules, phonograph drools!

OK, that's not true, I'm sure that there is plenty of good sounding LP recordings, but I was quite underwhelmed at the first and only audio show I've been to, just recently. Plenty of high end 'vinyl' (ugh I hate the word), and yet either I heard stuff which was either fine, or congested. All of the digital sounded fine to me. And clicks and pops and 23 minutes per side and cleaning and blah blah blah.

And you can't stream phonograph recordings.

I feel many things..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 18:23:26

genungo

.., many of which are of probably of little interest to anyone but me. I don't really care, I'll talk anyway. Another reason to "like" vinyl and CD?

They exist.

We have gone to the trouble of manufacturing zillions of plastic discs and playback machines (many of them quite decent sounding), at substantial cost to ourselves and the environment, and we're simply going to junk them and/or throw them into the landfill just so that we can avail ourselves of a few extra iotas of resolution and... convenience?

THIS kind of narcissistic thinking has no place on my lifestyle menu any longer. Thanks, but no thanks...

RE: I feel many things..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 18:36:00

Mr_Steady
Audiophile

Posts: 2042
Location: North Florida
Joined: August 19, 2014

I have several hundred Edison wax cylinders. They aren't in a landfill. I actually play them occasionally, and enjoy them. That doesn't mean they aren't obsolete. So what? You'll never get that source material in hi-res anyway. It also doesn't mean I don't like better formats, and better quality audio then was available in 1905.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 18:46:20
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	Sure, I don't like the sound of op-amps. I am assuming that the active low pass filter (anti-aliasing filter) is built around op-amps. Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

RE: Wow......., posted on October 8, 2015 at 20:14:58

mikel
Audiophile

Posts: 2773
Joined: July 4, 2000

Todd,

the Trinity dac was not at RMAF.

Trinity is a small German company with limited capacity. they are a huge deal in HK, particularly as it's a redbook/PCM centric market, and that market does absorb much of their output. with the labor intensive process for the dac they can only produce 3 a month.

at this point they sell direct into the North American market. they did have a USA distributor but do not currently.

I sort of stumbled onto them researching the ultimate PCM dac. the more I looked and researched and read, the more I was intrigued. I bought mine without ever hearing it. and it surpassed my expectations.

mikel

The economy..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 20:18:01
genungo	... would, of course, totally collapse if more people did according to genungo. Bring it on, I say. I'll be enjoying the last of whatever remains as fascinating and obsolete in audio while Rome burns to the ground - as it almost certainly will, eventually... Bwa-haaaa-haaaaa!

Interesting analogy..., posted on October 8, 2015 at 22:12:28

musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31879
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
Since: January 28, 2004

but (skipping the wax cylinder part) there are PLENTY of marvelous, wonderful high fidelity 78's
that would give any LP pressed in the past year a run for its money sonically.

Proper systems in place of course and no discrimination of monophonic recordings allowed.

The advent of the vinyl LP didn't necessarily provide a better sonic experience, but it certainly provided a
more convenient and marketable product. Unbreakable too!

That said, CDs sound SO MUCH BETTER than previously that undoubtedly much progress has been
made and the format continues to evolve (even as sales/interest plummets).

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

I'm sorry, I just have to make this commit/question, posted on October 9, 2015 at 07:33:12
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	"If the transients are band limited" If the transients have been ban limited then can they still be considered true transients? Hasn't the band limiting removed most/some of what defined them as "transients" in the first place? Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

RE: I read it and I dismissed it, posted on October 9, 2015 at 10:03:23

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

I've been running this "MP3 vs CD" test (the MP3 converted back to a "CD quality container"), and over 60 percent of the people prefer the converted MP3 track. If people have a hard time distinguishing between those resolutions, I can believe the difficulty in regard to CD quality vs. high-rez.

Heck, I recently took a listening test which I thought the 128 kbps MP3 was the most-resolute track.

I agree with another comment here that half the problem is the recordings themselves haven't exactly been stellar. And I do believe the reason for the awful recordings is a combination of intermingling of formats and designers who I think don't have a solid grasp of DSP/signal theory. (I personally think ProTools in particular is absolute garbage.)

And finally, I believe the RFI from active digital processing "confuses" the brain in regard to sonic differences..... I liken it to conducting a taste test in a perfume shop.

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=prophead&n=3529

RE: I did some reading, posted on October 9, 2015 at 10:09:39

Dave_K

Let me give you the long answer.

The analog signal that you are sampling contains the musical signal S(t) plus an analog error signal consisting of distortion D(t) plus noise N(t). Digital sampling without dither turns this into sequence of quantized sample values x(i) which encode the analog signal plus error value (S+D+N) at time t(i) along with the addition of a second error signal Q(i). The quantization error Q is the difference between the value of S+D+N and the nearest digitally representable signal level. So x(i) = S(t(i)) + D(t(i)) + N(t(i)) + Q(i).

Because Q is a residual of rounding the sum of S+D+N to the nearest digital value, it is correlated to the sum of S+D+N. The spectrum of Q will depend on the spectra of those components and on how well it correlates with each of those S,D,N components, which in turn depends on the level of those components relative to Q. For example, if S>D>N>Q or S>N>Q>D, then Q will be mainly correlated with N and will have a noise-like spectrum. Since it's lower in level than N, it's buried in the analog noise floor and you can consider the sampling process to be effectively transparent. On the other hand, if S>Q>D>N or S>Q>N>D, then Q will be mainly correlated to the signal S. In that case, it will be a type of distortion whose spectrum is a function of the signal and the sampling rate. Since it is also above the analog noise floor N, the sampling process cannot be considered transparent.

For 16-bit sampling, Q is at the -96 dB level, which may be above or below the analog noise floor depending on the nature of the input signal (tape, mic feed, MIDI, etc.) So there are cases involving low noise input sources where 16-bit sampling without dithering can produce a spectrum of distortion products that many people agree is audible and everyone agrees is undesirable.

Dithering in analog to digital conversion is the intentional mixing of a pseudo-random analog signal into the input of the sampler at a level slightly above Q. So x(i) = S(t(i)) + D(t(i)) + N(t(i)) + dither(t) + Q(i). A typical dither signal used in audio is at the level of +/- 1 LSB and has a triangle PDF. It has a flat white-noise like spectrum. It's level is 3 dB above Q, so Q will end up being correlated with the dither rather than the signal, and therefore Q will have a white-noise like spectrum. The tradeoff is slightly more noise but no added distortion.

A second benefit of dithering is that periodic signals which are below the quantization noise floor are preserved in the sampled data and can extracted by time averaging. Without dithering, in the cases where Q>N, those signals are turned into distortion by the quantization process and lost.

For 24-bit sampling, Q is at the -144 dB level, which is pretty much guaranteed to be below the analog noise floor of any current recording equipment. So dithering is optional in a 24-bit ADC but it is usually done anyway. However, if you take 24-bit data and reduce it to 16-bits to fit on a CD, you still need to dither (in a digital form) to avoid introducing distortion. More generally, any process that results in a reduction in bit depth should also include dithering. Many operations performed in the digital domain by a mixing or mastering engineer require multiplication of digital values, a process which results in a longer word length than the input (e.g. multiplying two 24-bit numbers can product a result that is up to 48 bits in length). These results have to dithered rather than simply truncated or rounded to fit back into 24 bits. So most digital audio operations involve dithering of intermediate results.

To finally answer your question: With a minimalist production chain, you could conceivably record, produce, and release at 24-bits with no dither used at all. But the more processing you perform, the greater the likelihood of some quantization distortion reaching an audible level. Which is one of the reasons why dithering is a de facto standard in modern digital audio regardless of the end user delivery format.

RE: "44.1 actually sounds better than 24/192"..., posted on October 9, 2015 at 10:10:12

Dave_K

An oversampling ADC really has two anti-aliasing filters. The primary one is a digital filter, not an active analog filter.

A typical modern ADC channel might be capturing data from a mic feed at 24-bit/96 KHz using 8x oversampling, which means the actual sample rate that it's operating at internally is 96x8 = 768 KHz. It needs to have an analog anti-aliasing filter at the input to block anything above fs/2 from going into the modulator, but with such a high sample rate this can be a gentle RF filter since the stop band can start as high as 384 KHz. The modulator incorporates noise shaping, which pushes down the quantization/dither noise within the audio band at the expense of more out of band digital noise. The data is then downsampled from 768 KHz to 96 KHz at the output of the ADC, eliminating that out of band noise. Downsampling requires an anti-aliasing filter, which is implemented entirely in the digital domain using a linear phase (FIR) filter with a transition band between 40-48KHz. This digital filter is the primary anti-aliasing filter for the ADC, not the analog filter at the input for rejecting RF.

The digital data would then go through the whole production process at 24/96 before it gets downsampled to 16/44.1 at the very end. The downsampling process includes another anti-aliasing filter, again a linear phase digital filter, but this one will have a brick wall response between 20-22 KHz. This last filter is going to be the one most likely to have audible artifacts.

RE: I feel the same way, Chris..., posted on October 9, 2015 at 10:43:01

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"If you listen almost exclusively to classical music (as I believe you do), you are one of the few who are consistently being treated to well-recorded audiophile productions of acoustical music wherein slight advances in resolution are most noticeable. Other, more popular genres of music are not very often handled with the same care in production. So, unless you like classical music an awful lot you are probably wasting your time worrying about the latest in hi-rez tech - at this point in time at least."

I feel that way with modern pop recordings, relative to good rock, jazz, or classical recordings..... Take the Rush song "Xanadu", from the album "A Farewell to Kings".... One can definitely notice a loss of information playing the CD relative to the vinyl. (Provided both rigs are quite good.)

But most modern pop releases, Lady Gaga, Three Doors Down, The Blackeyed Peas, etc. .... The music is so overprocessed, higher resolution might actually have detrimental effect on the enjoyment of it.

"I believe that there are more important issues to consider in the making of a good sounding recording than detail resolution, and that is why I'll look for the most musically satisfying production rather than the one with the highest resolution."

I think they go hand in hand.... Many people mistake accentuated highs (for example) for "higher resolution"..... Higher resolution playback in my opinion sounds more relaxed and real, not "hyper-detailed".

A great acid test for resolution is the Donald Fagen song "I.G.Y." ("The Nightfly" album).... There is an electronic keyboard that plays a reggae-style "syncopation" in the intro..... That keyboard plays this "syncopation" during the entire song, and should be easily audible during the entire song. Too often it gets "drowned out" in the music following the intro.

"If the 'best' musical production seems to be on vinyl, I'll take it. If the best production is on redbook, I'll take that one. If the best is on hi-rez digital, I'll (eventually, not immediately) take that one too."

It's very rare where I encounter the best production being on a digitized format. (I know a few such productions, but have drawn a blank for now.) I almost always prefer the vinyl.

"All that said, in many (not all!) cases there is something about the *resolution* and overall sound quality of a recording cut on vinyl. Despite all of vinyl's problems, what I think I'm hearing on a good vinyl record is a natural sense of liveliness, 'flow', and atmosphere that I've rarely heard with other formats. I realize that I'm probably listening to distortions of various types but the overall effect is oftentimes a very pleasing one, for me. All I can do is to recommend that everyone give good vinyl a try sometime (while they are trying out everything else there is to be tried, of course)."

The only time I notice a "loss of resolution" in CD playback is when I play vinyl of the same music. Rarely the case with high-resolution digital formats.

"I believe the RFI from active digital processing "confuses" the brain"..., posted on October 9, 2015 at 12:51:55
Steve O Audiophile Posts: 12376 Location: SE MI Joined: September 6, 2001	...Please elaborate! Taken literally, you're stating that the human sensory system is capable of directly responding to RF electromagnetic radiation at nW levels. I can understand how rampant RFI from digital sources, processors and other sources "could" cause audible artifacts in susceptible electronics but it doesnt strike me as reasonable that humans would be directly affected.

Thank you Dave and to everyone else, please ignore most of what I've said., posted on October 9, 2015 at 17:12:38

Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002

This answer and your other answer plus some more reading on my part and I now have a different understanding of the whole subject.

I am now left with the question, why doesn't digital sound better than it does?

I used to work at a recording studio. We had a Ampex ATR 102. We also had a 24/96 digital system using Apogee I/O's (circa 2005).

Comparing the live mic feed to the ATR (properly aligned using 456 at +3 and 30ips no Dolby) was almost indistinguishable.

The digital never did that. At least not to my ears.

If the blame doesn't belong where I was placing it....where does it belong?

Whatever, I'm going to go play an old, made from a analog master tape, vinyl record. :-)

BTW I just read the link below, circa 1998. 24/96 digital to analog converter, 8x oversampling filter.

Tre'

Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/sbas096/sbas096.pdf

RE: Another "Science-tologist." He focuses on steady-state frequencies and disregards transients, posted on October 9, 2015 at 18:23:55
Tony Lauck Audiophile Posts: 13629 Location: Vermont Joined: November 12, 2007	Todd, With all due respect, you are the only person I've heard who has said this. Tony Lauck "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Article Itself Has Some Fallacies......, posted on October 9, 2015 at 18:40:44

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

With existing master tape transfers to 96/24 vs. 192/24, discerning listners can recognize that the higher resolution format sounds better. It is debatable whether 192/24 can capture the output of a high quality master tape, but not when it comes to 96/24. For live feeds, it seems questionable that even 192/24 is sufficient to achieve transparency. Here, however it is harder to tell if the failure is due to the equipment or the format.

If you are forced to listening to the end product in various formats, you can not possibly judge the issues. To do so requires hands on experience with the signals before and after mulilation by inadequate digital formats. This pretty much rules out all audiophiles who do not have experience making recordings.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: Possible..., posted on October 9, 2015 at 18:51:16

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

"Anything is possible, I guess."

Much of music and audio is a scam. It is done for money and not for love of music. Even if the music is played for love by the musicians, many of the people who produce and sell the records are in it for the money. Many of these people are parasites who make their living by exploiting musicians.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: When I hear about..., posted on October 9, 2015 at 18:54:50
Tony Lauck Audiophile Posts: 13629 Location: Vermont Joined: November 12, 2007	In fairness to those DBTs, there are even asshole objectivists who have passed DBTs proving that they have heard differences between CD quality and hi-res. Tony Lauck "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I'm grateful., posted on October 9, 2015 at 19:22:58
jusbe Audiophile Posts: 5950 Location: North Island Joined: April 4, 2000	For you and people like you. To each, their own, no doubt. Doesn't stop collecting CDs either. Big J "... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal* salvation is a contradiction in terms."*

"It is debatable whether 192/24 can capture the output of a high quality master tape", posted on October 9, 2015 at 19:32:40
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 26465 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012	Uh. . . what's the debate? In what way is an analogue master tape superior? Or is this statement just an assertion?

RE: Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs, posted on October 9, 2015 at 19:34:52
Inmate51	Last time I looked, neither Neil Young, Steve Jobs, nor the article author had ever designed an ADC or a DAC, nor presented a research paper on any of the involved topics. Just sayin'. :)

RE: "It is debatable whether 192/24 can capture the output of a high quality master tape", posted on October 9, 2015 at 20:07:58

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

It's quite simple: you listen to the output of the tape recorder directly and you listen to the output of the digital playback of a recording made previously from the tape recorder. If you hear a difference, then higher resolution digital gear is needed.

It could be that the resolution from a 30 IPS wide track tape master isn't good enough to show up problems with the digital gear. In this case, the test is a live microphone feed. This is a simple A - B test that compares apples to apples. The goal is to see whether or not digital recording is "perfect sound" or not.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: "It is debatable whether 192/24 can capture the output of a high quality master tape", posted on October 9, 2015 at 20:39:12
Inmate51	Hey Tony, There are too many variables to boil it down to that. Still, you're on a good thought track about this. Continue on! :)

It seems to me that you might hear more of a difference if you reversed the test, posted on October 9, 2015 at 22:27:58

Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26465
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
Since: February 6, 2012

i.e., take the output of a digital recorder, record it onto an analogue tape machine, and see if you notice a difference. I'd lay odds that you might notice MORE of a difference with his kind of a test! ;-)

I also read of a test some years ago where LP's were recorded onto CD-quality digital recorders (i.e., not hi-rez), and listeners were unable to tell which were the LP's and which were the digital recordings of those same LP's.

RE: Article Itself Has Some Fallacies......, posted on October 10, 2015 at 05:35:56

Mr_Steady
Audiophile

Posts: 2042
Location: North Florida
Joined: August 19, 2014

>"If you are forced to listening to the end product in various formats, you can not possibly judge the issues."

If you mean how close it is to a mic feed, then you got me on that one. If you mean a enthusiast can't pick out which format sounds best, then I don't agree. They have apple pie bake-offs all the time, and award blue ribbons. The tasting judges usually aren't professionals, just people who like apple pie. I wouldn't be surprised if they get on forums, and talk about apple pie.

Of course we all know that in the end the market will decide.

For the record I have made rips from vinyl, and even used various ways to declick them, none of which I liked. I prefer the raw recording. Still that's very little experience. It's only at the enthusiast level.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!

Page:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

General Asylum

Attention High Resolution Proponents. Neil Young/Steve Jobs

208.123.32.107