Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Break up my comments in two parts and maybe it will be easier to decipher my message.
I'll admit to being a little pedantic here...
If CD is the "cassette" of digital, where does that leave higher res digital? My take on it is that a well-made cassette can sound pretty good, but it's a big stretch to say it's as good as a CD can be. So if CD is better than cassette (which can be pretty good), hires digital is really good, like better than LP. So there is nothing there for a "digital lover" to be angry or upset about, perhaps just the opposite.
If CD is the "cassette" of digital, where does that leave higher res digital? My take on it is that a well-made cassette can sound pretty good, but it's a big stretch to say it's as good as a CD can be. So if CD is better than cassette (which can be pretty good), hires digital is really good, like better than LP. So there is nothing there for a "digital lover" to be angry or upset about, perhaps just the opposite.
I know that you are a smart guy, but I think you missed the irony completely. How many RBCD lovers on this forum think that digital is WAY better than the best analog (meaning LPs and 15 ips 2 track tape)? Lots by my count. So when Barry said 16 bit/CD is the audio equivalent of cassette, I thought it was pretty funny and would make some digital lovers mad/upset and thus my
emoticon. And of course Barry's comparison of RBCD to cassette tape plays into analog lovers hands and thus my emoticon.My last dig was that I thought Barry's comparing CD to cassette tape was selling cassette tape short. And your right, well made cassettes made from a good deck with great source material sounds damn good. However, many people equate cassette tape with a less than high-fidelity sound, specially those who believe in and love the digits. Saying CD sounds like a cassette tape would be considered derogatory by many people. I hope this is clear now.
My reaction to Barry's post (probably colored somewhat by reading his posts and opinions for many years now) was exactly the opposite of yours. Mine was:
analog lovers
digital lovers
Thus my confusion. I know that in Barry's world, analog reel tape > LP > CD, but 24/192 PCM beats them all.
analog lovers
digital lovers
Thus my confusion. I know that in Barry's world, analog reel tape > LP > CD, but 24/192 PCM beats them all.
My reaction to Barry's post (probably colored somewhat by reading his posts and opinions for many years now) was exactly the opposite of yours. Mine was:
analog lovers
digital lovers
Thus my confusion
I'm simply speechless, and that doesn't happen very often.
"CD is the cassette of digital isn't likely to anger any digital audiophiles. Most of them would agree, I think.
Tim
Tim
So when Barry said 16 bit/CD is the audio equivalent of cassette, I thought it was pretty funny and would make some digital lovers mad/upset and thus my
I wasn't upset about the remark, I found it ridiculous. Barry may be a great sound engineer (I don't know his work), but he isn't particularly helping himself by making such silly remarks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good to see Barry Diament here. I enjoy his work immensely and he is very articulate on the advantages of hirez.
There is also this:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
There is also this:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
My reaction to Barry's post (probably colored somewhat by reading his posts and opinions for many years now) was exactly the opposite of yours. Mine was:
analog lovers
digital lovers
Thus my confusion. I know that in Barry's world, analog reel tape > LP > CD, but 24/192 PCM beats them all.
Hi rbbert,
Actually, in my world it would be more like LP > analog reel tape > CD but properly done 24/192 (not so common) beats them all.
To my ears, recording to lacquer disc (even a pressing from said lacquer) is more faithful to the input than any analog tape.
As far as my comment that CD is "the cassette of digital", I'm surprised at the confusion. The intention is that cassette (regardless of what one thinks of the format) in my view ranks toward the bottom of the analog tape hierarchy in terms of fidelity to the input signal. Yes, there are worse formats but there are also considerably better ones -- assuming fidelity to the input is the goal. (It isn't always.)
With that in mind, I could say the same about CD: There are worse formats but in my view, there are also considerably better ones. I thought mep's remark was funny and believe I took it in the way he intended it.
To be clear, while they can certainly sound very good, I am not and have never been a big fan of CD as a format. I was never a big fan of cassette either. Perhaps this will remove some of the confusion.
As always, just my perspective.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi mep,
To be clear, I did not say 16-bit/CD is the audio equivalent of cassette. (I didn't say it because I don't believe it.) I was declaring *my perception* of the rank of each within the digital and analog realms, respectively. I see both as compromised formats at best. They *can* sound pleasant enough but I would not refer to either as being particularly high in the fidelity-to-input department.
For the record, I think there are things CD does better than cassette.
I also think there are things cassette does better than CD.
It is just my opinion and how *I* hear it, so I won't go into particulars. The point is moot.
All I'm saying is that *to my ears* there are better digital formats and there are better analog formats.
Some will agree and some won't agree. I think that's wonderful.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Last edited:
Guys, please keep the Terms of Service of the forum in mind when posting! Challenge the information in a post, not the poster himself.
Lee
Lee
Barry,
This was clear for any one reading the whole series of posts. Unfortunately some of our members only read a few occasional quotations of the original post, misunderstand the whole debate and post immediately their indignation!
Can we have your views on 24/96 versus 24/192? It a much less talked subject, but particularly interesting in my opinion.
Hi microstrip,
Thank you.
Regarding 24/96, with the understanding that I can only report on how *I* hear it (and the further understanding that some poor folks will still get their knickers all twisted up as a result), I think 24/96 can be better than cassette. ;-}
Okay, seriously: To my ears, when done well, I think 24/96 *can* sound really good and all other things being equal, a *big* step up from CD. I say "can" for several reasons, prime among them being my belief that 90-95% or more of a recording's ultimate sonic quality has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. (They have not yet entered the mic cables, much less been recorded in any format, analog or digital.)
Next, the clocking and analog stages and filtering in the A-D-A conversions must be up to the task of 24/96. As I hear it, a good many in fact, are. (Things get a little more iffy when the rates double once more to 176.4 or 192 and many converters I've heard actually perform *worse* at these rates than they do at the easier 2x rates like 88.2 and 96k. I attribute that to clocking that is not up to the significantly increased demands of the higher rates and to analog stages that are not performing so well at the wider bandwidths.)
That said, the very best 24/96 I've heard sounds to me like "great digital". It still doesn't (as I call it) "get out of the way" to anything like the degree properly done 4x does. Same as with any analog recorder I've heard, the best 24/96 *still* doesn't sound indistinguishable from the source (of most importance to me, that is the direct mic feed). It sounds great but that is exactly what I find "wrong" with it. I want the "sound" to come from the recording and not the format or the devices used to create it or play it back. Hence, I prefer a chain that, rather than sounding "great", does not "sound" at all -- at least to the extent technologically possible. ;-}
To be clear, that last comment is in relation to the best 24/192 I've heard, which for the first time in my experience, I have *not* yet been able to distinguish from the direct mic feed. The crossing of that threshold (a recorded sound I have trouble distinguishing from the input signal), one I've wished for since my earliest experiences recording, means that I consider properly done 4x to be a bigger step up from 24/96 than the latter is from CD. (And contrary to what I see most folks talk about, it is in the *bass* that I find the 4x rates to be particularly remarkable.)
With all the above in mind, I think there is still a ways to go in terms of most converters that have "24-bits" and "192k" on their spec sheets. Certainly, they can play back 24/192 files. I just don't hear many of them achieving the potential I've heard with some devices. Perhaps this is at least a partial explanation for some of the comments I've seen where folks say 24/192 doesn't sound very different to them from 24/96. And the others who either hear no difference at all or hear the higher rates as inferior. They may well be blaming the format for something the playback chain is doing.
Of course, different formats are often represented by different masterings which to my mind, invalidates any comparison. The engineer will *always* make a bigger difference. I'd rather hear an mp3 of a Keith Johnson recording than the 24/192 from many other engineers. The only fair way to compare formats is to have the different formats produced in the same mastering session. (To this end, I created the Soundkeeper Recordings Format Comparison page, featuring samples from some of my own recordings, where each of the different formats was created at the same mastering session.)
But all this is just *my* perspective.
What about you? What are *your* views on 24/96 vs. 24/192?
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com (The Soundkeeper Blog)
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thanks for that...and generally I am one of those who has not been blown away by the 'random' hi res files I have heard (from time to time) on expensive digital playback. However, I intuitively feel confident that when done right, hi-res will be far superior to the best redbook. However, until there is loads and loads of such quality files, and as you say the right playback equipment, I prefer to keep to redbook which is cheap and widely available...and focus on picking up remasters/masters by good recording engineers (Bob Ludwig, Analogue Productions, FIM, Keith Johnson, and our own members here like Bruce, MA Recordings, etc). In fact, that reminds me, I should look at your websites...and pick up some albums!
Similar threads
