Hi res again?
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Any bloke who can hang out with a decent swag of facial fuzz can't be all bad ...
Frank
If we accept the premise of the article that differences between hirez and redbook are inaudible then surely the rest of the system makes no difference. If the author is correct then you'll no better hear the difference on a high end system than on a laptop - because there is no difference to hear
Again, it seems to me that you're confusing the "quality" of the format with the quality of the playback mechanism. Take R2R tape for example: if someone was using the best 1" tape media on a deck that suffered an inherent flaw that introduced very unpleasant high frequency distortion people could say, I think 1" sucks!; on the other hand they listen to a 1/4" machine that's been tweaked to an inch of its life, on just technically reasonable recordings, and the same people would exclaim, isn't reel to reel magnificent!
In the other words, it's always the total combination that counts: the medium, the recordings and the playback equipment. Ignoring one of these elements could lead you to make a wrong judgement call ...
Frank
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Yes, I would agree with this and go further saying that the recording/mixing/mastering "can" make more of a difference that sample rate/format.
Again, if you accept the premise of the article, there is no difference to hear, no matter how good or bad your system is.
It's like saying that two different systems sound different when nothing is playing.
Fair enough from the precise point of view of the article, which is discussing bit depth only, not sampling rate. Of course the real formats are combinations of different bit depth AND sampling rates which complicates matters. If you created a format 24/44.1, and compared that to the CD standard, 16/44.1, I would agree that there should be no audible difference, unless the maker of the playback equipment really tried to be "smart" and extract something that wasn't there in the greater bit depth, and only succeeded in creating an artificial tonal difference ...
It's all pretty straightforward with bit depth: 16 bits gives you 96dB dynamic range if the mastering is done properly; most people listen at a level most of the time that never goes above 100dB at the ear; which means that the softest sound on the CD is just above 0dB, at the ear. Now, that is an incredibly soft sound, you would have to be in an ultra, ultra quiet environment to have any chance of picking up anything, perhaps the best headphones in the world might do it. So the number 16, at the time of listening, is fine.
Frank
Very effective
Spectragraph Plot of a 24 Bit 100Hz Sine Wave
Spectragraph Plot of a 24 Bit 100Hz Sine Wave Truncated to 16 Bits
Spectragraph Plot of 24 bit Sine Wave Dithered to 16 bits
Obvious dither is needed, the quantization error is very substantial
Obvious it removes this error very effectively
But it leaves me puzzled why we have problems hearing the difference between 16 and 24.
Ok, one should not listen with ones eyes but iif the impact of the truncation to 16 is so dramatic that we need dither to camouflage; one would expect the difference between 16 and 24 to be profound.
But I must admid, -96 dBFS is pretty soft.
It looks like the Cadenza website has gone but I found another source.
Dither explained by Nika Aldrich: http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf
Very effective
Spectragraph Plot of a 24 Bit 100Hz Sine Wave
Spectragraph Plot of a 24 Bit 100Hz Sine Wave Truncated to 16 Bits
Spectragraph Plot of 24 bit Sine Wave Dithered to 16 bits
Obvious dither is needed, the quantization error is very substantial
Obvious it removes this error very effectively
But it leaves me puzzled why we have problems hearing the difference between 16 and 24.
Ok, one should not listen with ones eyes but iif the impact of the truncation to 16 is so dramatic that we need dither to camouflage; one would expect the difference between 16 and 24 to be profound.
But I must admid, -96 dBFS is pretty soft.
It looks like the Cadenza website has gone but I found another source.
Dither explained by Nika Aldrich: http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf
I don't understand this technically on the leve that you do, Vincent, but I'm not sure I get why you're struggling with the concept. If the masking is that effective, and it makes the quantization error just a part of a noise floor that is so low, why are you still puzzled? What are you expecting to hear?
Tim
Well, if we look at the 4 kHz noise products, we see the noise at ~ -100dB for the 24 bit sample. For the truncated version, noise is at -30dB. For the dithered version, noise is at -40dB.
Lee
Lee
Anything "can" make a difference and this seems obvious. To say it is more or less is an academic question - surely bad mastering can ruin a recording and changing the rate/format will not do the same. However, information that was lost at low sample/bit rates will be also lost and never recovered.
One of the big issues for me is that some people pretend that the only reason for the inferior sound quality of tens of thousands of existing records in CD format is the alternative mastering.
But I can not believe in the conspirator theory – that tens or hundreds of thousands of decent analog recordings sound inferior in CD format only because suddenly all people doing mastering forgot about how to do it properly or decided to compromise its quality. I have hope that some better resolution digital formats will be able to duplicate the intrinsic excellent sound quality of many good recordings – and happily we have trustful testimonies of professionals in WBF to keep us happy while expecting it.
I have not switched to a HiRez digital format because the recordings I want to listen to do not exist in this format – they are mainly available in 44.1/16 and listen to them in this format. Although I have not yet made the jump to HiRez, I would be very disappointed if the claim that HiRez does not sound better is true. Currently my digital system (CD redbook) is very enjoyable, but doubtless inferior in listening pleasure to the best I get from my top analog recordings, both in reel tape or vinyl media. So my expectation bias is enormous!
I for one would never make that claim. Many of them were badly recorded in the first place and no amount of quality mastering can save them. But the fact remains that vinyl is a hobbyists format, not a mass market one. It rarely gets the "loudness" treatment of contemporary recordings and remasters and very frequently gets special care under the correct assumption that it will mostly be sold to an audiophile market. But step outside of the world of pop music into classical, jazz and acoustic and you'll find plenty of CDs that exceed the basic capabilities of vinyl. But that's an old, shopworn subject and not the topic of this thread.
Tim
Sorry to disagree, but this is an important topic of this thread. Vinyl can be now an hobby format but it was not thirty years ago when the most of my LPs were manufactured. BTW, most of my vinyl collection is chamber classical, and most of them sound better than the equivalent CDs.
BTW, the last time I asked for a list of ten good classical CDs, just for curiosity I got evasive answers. Can you suggest them?
Not a big classical guy. 10 great jazz cds? But let's qualify first -- you looking for great music or great audiophile recordings.
Tim
Tim
I'm sorry microstrip, to keep hammering this, but there is no such thing as loss of information using RB. The problem is the mechanism of playback, not in the content on the CDs themselves. For years we have had the gasps of astonishment from many, about how they are amazed that so much music and detail had been captured on vinyl, that was never properly revealed for literally decades after their time of their manufacture. Exactly the same is true of CD, and HiRez at the moment really is just a short cut to getting closer to the true content of digital sound, it just makes the job of the electronics, etc, in getting decent sound out to your ear easier.To say it is more or less is an academic question - surely bad mastering can ruin a recording and changing the rate/format will not do the same. However, information that was lost at low sample/bit rates will be also lost and never recovered.
...
I have not switched to a HiRez digital format because the recordings I want to listen to do not exist in this format – they are mainly available in 44.1/16 and listen to them in this format. Although I have not yet made the jump to HiRez, I would be very disappointed if the claim that HiRez does not sound better is true. Currently my digital system (CD redbook) is very enjoyable, but doubtless inferior in listening pleasure to the best I get from my top analog recordings, both in reel tape or vinyl media. So my expectation bias is enormous!
So we don't need "better" formats, we need better equipment and systems for getting the playback right ...
Frank
Tim,
In this particular thread just recordings with great sound quality that can be used as examples of the best of CD recording in classical music - something many of us can have life experience in good halls and is not easy to reproduce.
I always try to separate the quality of music and the quality of sound reproduction in this type of threads.
I hope - even pray - that you are correct, but I am not a patient man and as far as I have seen even those currently developing better CD sound reproduction equipment do not seem to believe it. Do you have links of manufacturers showing such positions? I would be very interested.
Yes, it's fascinating that even the makers of high end CD players often don't show a true enthusiasm for what they're doing: perhaps because the majority of them are still rooted deeply in the 80's, etc, when it became fashionable to pour vast quantities of poo from a great height upon digital ...
Spectral is one company that seems to have the right attitude, msb also looks good, lessloss is interesting, Jack's EERA player sounds like it has promise. The mainstream players are playing it too straight, you probably need to check out all the more esoteric, johnny come lately's: they're not labouring under the prejudices of the older companies.
In my personal experience even a mediocre CD playback mechanism can do an excellent job, if ALL the issues affecting sound quality are addressed. The big job is convincing the manufacturers, and consumers as well, that you have to be very, very fussy if you want to get digital to really sound good. If digital sound is 98% there it can still sound atrocious, it has to be 100% right in key areas, otherwise it's not worth listening to ...
Frank
Last edited:
Am I in the wrong thread? First you assured me that talking about vinyl was on topic. Now, "in this particular thread" you feel it is appropriate to limit the music discussion to classical. I was almost certain the thread was about hi-res digital formats and had no limitations around classical music. But hey, what do I know? I just started the thread...
Tim
Similar threads
