|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.200.146
In Reply to: RE: There is a long way to go posted by Bill Way on September 24, 2015 at 10:52:50
With data storage becoming so cheap, new better-sounding digital conversion/standards that might require huge files will no longer be prohibitive.
Some folks tend to forget that the Redbook standard was fenced around the limited storage medium created over thirty five years ago. In computer terms, that is ancient technology. As an IT professional, I remember the astronomical cost of storage in that day. The 2 TB drive used in my music server that I paid $80 for (and have a spare on the shelf) would have cost tens of millions of dollars and have taken up a warehouse full of space.
I'm convinced that the primary (not only) advantage to the high resolution formats returns to the "A" part - more gradual filters that behave far better in the primary ten octave analog domain used by our ears. Those who voice the usual canard about being better only for dogs and bats miss the point. :)
Follow Ups:
Redbook was also an unfortunate compromise that came about because Philips had developed oversampling technology and wanted to capitalize on it. High sampling rates will allow the use of filters with no audible effect in the audible range, and while it's a difficult task and it's been a long haul, there's no reason that converters and their associated analog circuitry can't be developed to the point at which they're inaudible. The industry is also slowly getting a handle on the jitter problem, although there are still too many converters out there that use substandard techniques (PLLs, ASRCs as opposed to genlock or isochronous USB). Finally, I think more attention has to be paid to gain structure.
All of that new digital speed, as has been pointed out by Todd Kreiger so many times, is not all wonderful.
AS with all things kooky audio there is a trade-off - you probably will get higher resolution, though of greatly diminishing returns, at the cost of much more digital noise intertwined with the signal you want.
Whether this can be removed remains to be heard. Once one hears this noise one can no longer ignore it. I have to believe many simply do not notice it and that's fine but as Pearson pointed out many years ago there is something fundamentally different with digital noise. Record noise and tape hiss, etc, we seem better able to separate from the signal, both with our brains and by the nature of the system but digital noise is endemic and literally, indelibly mixed into the signal.
The higher sample rates only increase the quantity of this, though it is shifted upwards, it is there in proportion. One of those cases where more is not better.
Not to say digital music cannot be enjoyed. Again, another famous Pearsonism, "one can enjoy listening to digital music as long as they do not listen to analog". Things have improved since then but there is still much truth in that statement.
Why would high sampling rates increase noise or distortion, or shift them anywhere?
Indeed, that was many years ago. Let's move forward in time and remember that he very much embraced the SACD format and used EMM Labs players in all three systems. Perhaps it would be helpful to review his thoughts circa '06 found on The Absolute Sound SACD Sampler , a copy of which he gave me.
"This disc is my unabashed effort to put together a sonic spectacular that will rot your shocks (sic),and to demonstrate the superiority of the DSD multichannel system so convincingly that will be no doubt about which high-resolution digital medium is the technological best. To be sure, this disc is meant to show that the multichannel concept intelligently applied to the real thing (unamplified music played in real spaces) represents a significant jump towards bringing us closer to the absolute sound, which is, of course, the real thing: music."
I tend to think he was on the right track before.
Forgive me, but I cannot separate market forces from Pearson's change of heart.
I listen to digital and analog and can enjoy them both but the digital always eventually wears me out and I have to take a break.
Mainly wanted to point out the "no free lunch" aspect of extra information in the digital realm. Similar in my experience to the "be careful what you ask for" syndrome.
Forgive me, but I cannot separate market forces from Pearson's change of heart.
Nor can I separate genuine progress.
I remember hearing the Burmester 969/970 pair at Sea Cliff about ten years ago. While it was hideously expensive, it proved to me that digital could be done right with a good recording. For me, it has only gotten better since then. Mind you, he always liked to spin the Clearaudio Statement as well. :)
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: