|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
92.221.74.82
In Reply to: RE: About depth of field with digital posted by Thorsten on May 08, 2015 at 12:34:55
Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable explanation
This is very specialistic and beyond my reach
But i would like very very much to have that switch
I have a dac with a switch ... but it is a joke of switch.
Maybe in this virtual era i have been influenced but i really like depth of field even if this is the result of some kind of processing.
Simply because in reality there is depth of field
We can localize sounds in space.
And it is also beautiful. Even the reviewers, who know their chickens, put the stress on this point of depth.
Who wants a flat sound ? nobody for sure.
I prefer cds where the soundstage is created artificially versus cds without any trace of depth.
Maybe it is not real but it is more "realistic".
Of course also i do not like the usual digital glare, lack of PRAT and so on ... but depth i like very much indeed.
The real world is 3D not flat.
Thanks a lot again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 05/08/15Follow Ups:
Hi,
> But i would like very very much to have that switch
Some products have it. You can nowadays get playback software that allows almost any type of filter to be added and also hosts so-called VST Plugins, which are the standard for Pro-Audio.
You could for example get very good reverb plugins. One of my favourite plugins is called re-life which can be to re-expand the dynamic range on material that is hopelessly compressed.
> Who wants a flat sound ? nobody for sure.
Then try not to go to a concert hall (most) and sit far back.
> Of course also i do not like the usual digital glare, lack of
> PRAT and so on ...
I do not think "digital glare" is usual.
PRAT is difficult topic. You know for example how that famous Turntable achieves PRAT?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Hi, and thanks again for the kind reply.
Sorry but i have still not learned how to quote here
" Some products have it. You can nowadays get playback software that allows almost any type of filter to be added and also hosts so-called VST Plugins, which are the standard for Pro-Audio.
You could for example get very good reverb plugins.
One of my favourite plugins is called re-life which can be to re-expand the dynamic range on material that is hopelessly compressed "
Very interesting. I have to study them more.
It has been important for me to realize that soundstage depth is always the result of some kind of digital processing in the D to A conversion.
I did not this for sure.
This makes digital processing a must for me. So i will study more of this very interesting aspect.
> Who wants a flat sound ? nobody for sure.
" Then try not to go to a concert hall (most) and sit far back "
Very interesting ... but then Who wants " to go to a concert hall (most) and sit far back " ?
I would like to be on the podium by the director !
Ok ... third row is ok.
> Of course also i do not like the usual digital glare, lack of
> PRAT and so on ...
" I do not think "digital glare" is usual "
i thought differently... it could be the case that i do not know what i am talking about. I am very confused. The more i read the more i get confused. It is a very very complex issue.
" PRAT is difficult topic. You know for example how that famous Turntable achieves PRAT?
Ciao T "
No .. which turntable ? i am not at all on analog. I am lazy and the solution of all my cds ripped on a nas is the only one that i can imagine. Also because it is not sadly my case but i am sure that excellent sound with digital can be obtained.
And one day ... perhaps ...
Thanks a lot again Mr. Thorsten for the always kind and precious advice.
Kind regards,
bg
Hi,> It has been important for me to realize that soundstage depth is
> always the result of some kind of digital processing in the D to A
> conversion.This is not correct. Soundstage depth is inherent to the recording. But in the case of flat "pan-pot stereo" recordings, it is possible top create the illusion of "more space" using low level reverb.
Good recordings contain good spatial rendering in themselves.
So called "Digital glare" has many reasons, though most are actually analogue.
As for that turntable, it shall remain nameless, however the design resulted in minute speed variations with varying needle-drag from varying levels cut in the LP, so very high levels would slow it down a tiny amount compared to quiet passages.
Equally, running a tape or LP slightly fast (meaning the pitch is slightly sharp) seems to give greater energy and excitement, in the old Days many DJ's used this by always playing music pitched slightly sharp. I certainly did.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 05/09/15
> > As for that turntable, it shall remain nameless, however the design resulted in minute speed variations with varying needle-drag from varying levels cut in the LP, so very high levels would slow it down a tiny amount compared to quiet passages. < <
In theory, a problem associated with every turntable, to a degree ...
Hi,> In theory, a problem associated with every turntable, to a degree...
Well, Direct Drive tables (be it Technics or Rockport) and the kind of Idler wheel drive tables like the old Garrard's tend to be pretty good on that count, the "super heavy rotating mass" turntable that dominate continental European High End (Verdier, many German ones - I hasten to add America and Australia also makes some "heavy mass" units worth considering) are also pretty impervious, even Oracle's do pretty well here.
On the other hand many a british turntable seem to not only accept this phenomenon but promote it by design (light platters, very weak motors etc.).
As always, a matter of taste. Those who like it, like it, the rest...
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 05/11/15
Hi and thanks again and sorry if i insist.
This is the point that interests me more, and actually i asked just this at the beginning ..." This is not correct. Soundstage depth is inherent to the recording.... Good recordings contain good spatial rendering in themselves. "
Perfect. Let's take an analog recording on tape or vinyl with an exceptionally captured and "natural" soundstage.
If i make a digital copy and play it back the soundstage will be intact ?
this for me is the acid test for any digital recorders and more in general AD-DA converters.
For instance i read of a guy doing this with an LP and a Korg recorder.
The copy had a shrinked soundstage. Narrower and flatter ... while the overall tone was quite ok.
This means to me that soundstage is challenging and it is an excellent tool to evaluate a playback system, analog and digital.
Actually i would do only this test.
Same room, same system, same excellent recording and different dacs.
The differences would pop up immediately.
The deeper the better ... i am sure of this.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 05/09/15
Hi,
> Perfect. Let's take an analog recording on tape or vinyl with
> an exceptionally captured and "natural" soundstage.
We can just take a microphone feed? How about that? And a speaker setup that handles this well using the microphone feed?
> If i make a digital copy and play it back the soundstage will
> be intact ?
Considering how many possible sample-rates, different equipments etc. exist this is a incorrectly asked question.
The answer BTW is that yes, using certain systems and formats this is possible, it is more so possible than with magnetic tape, never mind LP.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Hi and thanks again indeed.
This is very intriguing. Actually the world of music is changed with the recording of sounds ... an incredible invention.
I am fascinated by audio recording.
And when you say " ... using certain systems and formats this is possible ... " i guess redbook format has no chance. Hasn't it ?
And if i think that i have a music collection of only cds i would like to cry ... Life is a compromise.
Maybe just 48k would have made a remarkable difference .. what a pity that most of the music around is on a lesser format.
Thanks a lot again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 05/09/15
Hi,
> i guess redbook format has no chance. Hasn't it ?
Try listening to some recordings Keith Johnson has done for Reference Recordings, on a good system (say non-oversampling Multibit DAC single ended Triode Amplifiers or low feedback Triode Push-Pull Amplifiers and Tannoy Red 15" Coaxials or maybe Altec 604's with Mastering Labs Crossovers, I guess Spectral electronics and Avalon speakers should also count). You may be surprised how much space there can be on CD.
Friends used to joke I should pay more council tax as the sound scape went not just into the next terraced house on some recordings, but even into the one next to that, subjectively. Some Decca Recordings (try Dutoit/MSO Organ Symphony for an excellent example on CD) also manage to throw unbelievably deep and wide soundscapes.
Some reference recordings are available as CD Format (with HDCD) and as 88.2 or 176.4kHz/24Bit. I will say 24/88 or 176 is better, but the CD's illustrate just how good CD can be.
> Maybe just 48k would have made a remarkable difference ..
I would say had the format been made (say) 18 Bit at 64kHz we would have no debate. But at 44.1kHz and 16 Bit we are just short enough that the limits of the format can become obvious (I would say for > 80% of recordings they are not the limit).
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Hi Mr. Thorsten !
thanks a lot again for the very precious advice.
I hope one is the one in the picture ... i bought it now.
I will put it in my reference cds group.
Soundstage is a very excting feature of a system indeed.
I think i have also understood your position on the fierce debate multibit vs. delta-sigma dac chips very populare nowadays by these your words:
" .... Try listening to some recordings Keith Johnson has done for Reference Recordings, on a good system (say non-oversampling Multibit DAC ... "
Unfortunately it seems that manufacturers have completely stopped the production of multibit dac chips in favour of delta-sigma ... a real pity i guess.
Thanks a lot again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 05/10/15
Hi,
Yes, it is the one in the pic. It is great music and a great recording, these two often do not get hand in hand.
I did not quite nail my colours.
I personally value "a spacious sound", but I am not a total a soundstage freak either. Flat as a pancake will not do, but cavernous virtual rooms are not needed for me to enjoy music, but I do not mind them.
The system I described delivered this, on the right LP's or CD's. I am not sure how many others do.
But the point, cavernous soundstaging is not impossible on CD, but many factors conspire against it, few that are down to the format itself.
I suggest you read my (still dumbed down) sidebar to an interview, to illustrate my take on DS and MB.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Thanks a lot again !
I will read your interview very carefully.
I think i have more ears than brain in the sense that i am quite slow to understand but i guess i can spot good sound when i listen to it.
I have followed a little the discussion about multibit vs. delta-sigma without understanding much. But i see many looking for vintage multibit dac chip based converters.
I understand industry has stopped producing them.
And many say it is a really bad thing for audio. There are no hopes to see multibit dacs again.
But i have to read your interview first.
Thank you very much indeed.
Kindest regards.
Kind regards,
bg
It was a knock on Rega tables for a long time that they achieved their famed PraT by running slighly fast.
"It was a knock on Rega tables for a long time that they achieved their famed PraT by running slighly fast."
This explanation would imply that Rega markets to audiophools.
I found one review that showed a Rega TT running 0.34% fast. Such an error results in easily audible pitch errors, and to my way of thinking would disqualify the product as acceptable for audiophile use. (The manual implies there may be a way of adjusting this, but that users are not advised to do so.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi and i cannot believe that ... is it true ???!!!
That is not fair !
But if this is true, like i assume, it confirms one thing to me.
Often when i hear good music it seems slow ... relaxed, with detail and slow.
For instance the best LP i listen to sounded slow.
Never listen to Rega tables.
Then i read people liking music fast.
Very interesting point ... i will look for slow sound. Usually it involves me more in the listening.
Very interesting.I did not know.
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 05/09/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: