|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say posted by jamestavegia@gmail.com on April 30, 2015 at 03:13:12:
If the high resolution master is an integer multiple of the 44.1kHz, then it is a trivial process to convert to 44.1kHz by dropping the unwanted samples (i.e the inverse of oversampling). The problem isn't so much that the bandwidth is limited, but the cumulative effect of filter characteristics used throughout the recording-playback chain as well as jitter induced "distortion". The additional problem is introduced in the dithering process when the bit depth is reduced.
My own experiments show that a high resolution master is demonstrably better than 16/44. Of that, in my experience, there is no question. It is the equivalent viewing an upscaled DVD image then compaing to a true 1080p image. On superficial examination at the "normal" viewing distance, there is little to choose between them. However, move closer to the screen and the differences become more obvious. The same applies to noise-shaping and dithering - modern algorithms are based on a psycho-acoustic model (such as iZotope MBIT+) and these are optimised based on expected playback volume. If the playback volume deviates significantly from the expected level, then differences may be noted by the listener. In other words, the mastering engineer needs to understand the requirements of the listener with respect to the musical content. Classical piano is highly revealing of dithering and noise-shaping "errors" especially if the piece has a lot of pianissimo sections. If the noise shaping is too aggressive, then spurious artefacts may be heard on very low amplitude level notes in the midband. I have many commercial CDs that exhibited this and I originally thought there was something wrong with my playback system! It wasn't until I experimented in my own recordings that I realised that I could induce the same "distortions" on playback as well as eliminate them depending on the noise-shaping and dither amplitude chosen.
My point was really to highlight that early CDs were disappointing largely due to the technical limitations of the A/D equipment in terms of filter characteristics and timing precision as well as poor linearity of the DACs and reconstruction filter implementation, combined with simpler dithering. More advanced dithering schemes combined with noise-shaping characteristics based on psycho-acoustic models now provide a much better result, but are still no substitute for the high resolution master if ultimate quality is desired.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say - flood2 14:50:06 04/30/15 (1)
- RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say - Jabs1542 13:55:49 05/02/15 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
