CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[Al M.]

I don't know if this has been already brought up in this thread, but Rick Fryer of Spectral Audio, one of the best manufacturers in high-end (I have heard their gear myself), affirms that CD is in fact high-res when done well:

"Don't count 44.1kHz and CDs out," Fryer proclaimed at the start of a lengthy, technically complex introduction that he delivered without a single hesitation. "If 44.1 is implemented well, it is high-resolution. The problem is, there is little in the high-end digital arena that really is very good. CDs have an inherent nature all their own that needs to be supported by the finest technology they were designed for. If you want to hear the best that 16/44.1 can deliver, you have to revisit the technology, as we have, and develop a one-piece, single-box solution dedicated solely to the CD."

"Johnson and Fryer say that Spectral will "someday" develop a high-resolution file player. Meanwhile, they're convinced that the SDR-4000SL Master CD Processor functions at such a high level that there is little difference between the sound of well-recorded CDs through their player and the best current playback devices for higher-resolution files."

Link:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/spectral-unveils-sdr-4000sl-master-cd-processor

Since a few months I myself have the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2, and am truly astonished how much resolution and wonderful music can be squeezed out of 16/44 Redbook CD with this processor. A music buddy of mine who is a vinyl lover came recently over to my house and after a splendid evening of listening he unexpectedly gave the greatest compliment:

"This is as good as the best vinyl I've heard."

 

[FrantzM]

It's still not enough steps to match analog...ie: smooth waveform

The output of a DAC is also a smooth analog waveform ...

 

[rockitman]

The output of a DAC is also a smooth analog waveform ...

The issue is, the stored data from a/d (music) is not....

 

[puroagave]

...Since a few months I myself have the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2, and am truly astonished how much resolution and wonderful music can be squeezed out of 16/44 Redbook CD with this processor. A music buddy of mine who is a vinyl lover came recently over to my house and after a splendid evening of listening he unexpectedly gave the greatest compliment:

"This is as good as the best vinyl I've heard."

i had an Alpha dac ser. 1, then acquired a dac w/ DSD and recently went back to the Berkeley because i have way more redbook than i'll ever have SACDs or future DSD files. comparing the 16/44 layer processed thru the berkeley and the DSD layer played back over the sony xa5400es the difference was much less than i expected (fwiw, i listen to LPs 90% of the time)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know if this has been already brought up in this thread, but Rick Fryer of Spectral Audio, one of the best manufacturers in high-end (I have heard their gear myself), affirms that CD is in fact high-res when done well:

"Don't count 44.1kHz and CDs out," Fryer proclaimed at the start of a lengthy, technically complex introduction that he delivered without a single hesitation. "If 44.1 is implemented well, it is high-resolution. The problem is, there is little in the high-end digital arena that really is very good. CDs have an inherent nature all their own that needs to be supported by the finest technology they were designed for. If you want to hear the best that 16/44.1 can deliver, you have to revisit the technology, as we have, and develop a one-piece, single-box solution dedicated solely to the CD."

"If 44.1 is implemented well, it is high-resolution.

It is 16/44.1. Implementation does not change that unless he's upsampling or downsampling.

The problem is, there is little in the high-end digital arena that really is very good.

We are presented with an completely undefined, but industry-damning problem...

CDs have an inherent nature all their own that needs to be supported by the finest technology they were designed for.

OK...they're optical, digital, spinning discs, 16/44.1...all of that is inherent in their design and yes, better technology is better than worse technology, but what, if anything does this mean?

If you want to hear the best that 16/44.1 can deliver, you have to revisit the technology, as we have, and develop a one-piece, single-box solution dedicated solely to the CD."

...ah, of course. It means we have proposed a completely undefined "problem" that no one in the industry has addressed and for which we can now offer a paradigm-shifting solution.

Why so many educated, intelligent men don't back away from this kind of pitch with one hand on their wallets is the great mystery of the audiophile endeavor.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The issue is, the stored data from a/d (music) is not....

The stored data on vinyl or tape is not a continuous wave form either. It is dips and wiggles in plastic or iron particles rearranged on plastic. And of course that's not the point either.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

The issue is, the stored data from a/d (music) is not....

Not really. The issues is not the way the information is stored.. All that is important is the reproduction. If you push the conversation to the limit, music is stored on, (Analog favorite medium) on metal oxides tape particles, i-e discrete as in individual and distinct pieces of matter... What comes out from tapes or Vinyl or CD is a continuous waveform.

 

[Groucho]

The other element of audio resolution is bit depth, or quantization.

Bit depth determines the fineness with which the signal amplitude is digitized. An audio signal’s amplitude more or less correlates with its loudness or volume. The bit depth of the samples determines how many steps there are between the quietest and loudest possible sound that can be stored in that digital signal.

If there are too few steps, the signal gets “steppy” and sounds like a sequence of discrete notes rather than a smooth gradient. Chiptune and other videogame-inspired music intentionally uses audio that has been quantized to too few bits (often 8 or less) to achieve this sound.

No, this is wrong, and one of the articles I was linking to the other day makes this exact point. The '8 bit sound' from 1980s computer games was a result of inadequate (non-existent) antialiasing and reconstruction filtering, and should not be used as a stick to beat digital audio with. Downsampling from 24 bit to 8 bit with the appropriate dithering sounds perfect except for a higher level of tape-like hiss. Going down to 4 bits again sounds perfectly all right with just a higher level of hiss. There is *no steppiness* at the output. There is no distortion. There is random noise, just as there is from an analogue source.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

I put 2 files up on the server. If you can hear a difference, then bit depth DOES matter.

Which one is the 16-bit file?

ftp://pugetsoundstudios.com/

User: samples
Password: wbf2013

Anyone yet? ...Or perhaps bit depth is not so important after all. ...And extended frequency response is much more so; like 88.2 kHz or 176.4 kHz. ...Or DSD.

* Me, I don't have what it takes (MIME's restoration to my music player) and all that computer jazz. Plus my Sennheiser headphones are not digital 'audiophile' grade (they are more the analog type).

** ECM, do they do stuff like that? ...Digital hi-res audio (24/176) files of their music recording catalog?
And at what digital original resolution are they recording with? 16 bits or 24 bits, and 44.1 kHz or higher?
Do they use downsampling, or upsampling at all?

 

[JackD201]

Why are you two smiling? I still prefer analog

 

[rockitman]

Anyone yet? ...Or perhaps bit depth is not so important after all.

I believe it all comes down to the mastering as others have said. I have some recorded live, right off the sound bd mixing console, uncompressed stuff. It sounds great in 16/44. It's what is done to the uncompressed mastered material that causes the problems...brick wall, normalizing, compressing, dithering down ect (Choices made by the label/artist). I still prefer analog

 

[asiufy]

I believe it all comes down to the mastering as others have said. I have some recorded live, right off the sound bd mixing console, uncompressed stuff. It sounds great in 16/44. It's what is done to the uncompressed mastered material that causes the problems...brick wall, normalizing, compressing, dithering down ect (Choices made by the label/artist). I still prefer analog

+1

There are enough examples out there that prove that CDs (16/44) can sound good.
Perhaps, with all the "easy to use" and accessible digital tools out there, it's just too easy to mess up a CD, at least far easier than it was to screw up an LP.


alexandre

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Why are you two smiling? I still prefer analog

Just happy people.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Lol!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Lol!

Oh and I still prefer digital.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

+1

There are enough examples out there that prove that CDs (16/44) can sound good.
Perhaps, with all the "easy to use" and accessible digital tools out there, it's just too easy to mess up a CD, at least far easier than it was to screw up an LP.


alexandre

There were plenty of tools folks could abuse in the analog days, too, especially in the last decade. Anybody remember the Aphex Aural Exciter? Ever notice how compressed Born To Run is? How flat The River is? Sorry Bruce... Most of the problem, when there is one, is just bad taste.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

There were plenty of tools folks could abuse in the analog days, too, especially in the last decade. Anybody remember the Aphex Aural Exciter? Ever notice how compressed Born To Run is? How flat The River is? Sorry Bruce... Most of the problem, when there is one, is just bad taste.

Tim

Had one on my Numark DJ Mixer very early 90s. Used it exactly once.

 

[NorthStar]

yes, for example, if i do digital recording (24/96) and just play it back, everything is there, no manipulations, and the ambience is what really comes through. Close miking requires a lot of "adjustments" to the sound to get it to sound more like in the far field, and thats where things can start going bad.
it is the mix and master engineer who have to get it right and then the format (for me) does not matter.

That's pretty much where I'm at in this life.

 

[JackD201]

There were plenty of tools folks could abuse in the analog days, too,

Tim

follow up:

You did have to be way more careful in the days before non-destructive editing and a gazillion virtual tracks.