Fascinating: My sound engineer producer, with whom I've produced my last five productions swears by 24/88 or 96, but neither 176 or 192 he will use. And as he is the engineer, and me the musician (incidentally we hear very similar qualities, so it is my luxury to trust him in those decisions).
Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Fascinating: My sound engineer producer, with whom I've produced my last five productions swears by 24/88 or 96, but neither 176 or 192 he will use. And as he is the engineer, and me the musician (incidentally we hear very similar qualities, so it is my luxury to trust him in those decisions).
Jack,
Perhaps because your playback system has better sound quality at 88 or 96. It would be interesting to transcode these 176 or 192 files to 88 or 96 and look if they sound more energetic in your system.
Unfortunately some people have this opinion because the most known 192 files are the Reference Recording HiRez samples and they are are not enthusiastic music for many audiophiles.
That was already explained.
The Bigfoot part? Its hard to prove a negative. So you can't prove it does not exist. So the argument comes down to proponents and skeptics. That is a debate that goes around endlessly, whether its digital/anolog or some other such; I'm sure we all have pet issues like this that get debated ad nauseum on forums across the web.
All I know is that I have yet to see a digital system that really brings home the bacon, regardless of cost. The dynamic range is not an issue for me, and in showing with and using some very expensive (+$70,000) digital playback systems (I'm also a manufacturer so I am talking about CES, RMAF and the like), it always comes down to the same thing: whether in the studio or the home, digital represents an inferior media. Walks like a duck, quacks like one => despite all the latest advances (of which many have made the media much more tolerable!) the same problem persists (its inferior to analog) - and that is the analogy to the duck.
So when I look for reasons for why, and see right away that the theorem is not used per it parameters, and with that duck quacking in the background its one of those things that does not look like coincidence- Occam's Razor, that sort of thing. Like I said earlier- I get push back all the time- but the math is the math.
Not really.
Yes. Because just like with Bigfoot, you can present all the scientific evidence that a Bigfoot is unlikely, and you can point out that there is no independently verified spotting of Bigfoot, but you can't *prove* Bigfoot doesn't exist - so a bunch of people will keep *knowing* Bigfoot exists.
That is your subjective opinion - and as such, there is no way to challenge it. Personally I might be inclined to suspect that you happen to prefer certain imperfections that many analog systems posess and that tend to colour the sound. But that would just be me speculating.
We seem to disagree about which side Occam's Razor falls on - but usually it is the duck that draws the short straw.
So far you haven't presented any math - or shown what is wrong with my math. So yes, I agree, the math is the math.
Oh my, here we go again.
That's why I tried awhile ago in posing the question "sufficient for what" to provide some context for the discussion.
Have fun gentlemen.
GG
That's why I tried awhile ago in posing the question "sufficient for what" to provide some context for the discussion.
Have fun gentlemen.
GG
Well, not all analog fans would agree with you. Peter Breuninger, for example, states in his review at AV showrooms about the flagship MBL combo:
"The MBL 1611F D/A Converter and the MBL 1621F Transport represent a state-of-the-art attack on the best sound that digital audio reproduction offers today. Together as a set they produce the most analog like sound this audio reviewer has yet to experience from a digital front end. Ordinary 44.1 kHz Redbook CDs become as smooth as SACDs with the air and life you would expect from vinyl. In fact, the MBL combination is as satisfying as one of the best analog systems in the world… the Onedof turntable, Triplaner, Ikeda, and Zuzma 4Point arms, Ikeda 9TT and Phase Tech P-1G cartridges into the outstanding Wyetech Ruby Phono Stage. That’s a $170,000 analog system!
The MBL 1611F D/A Converter and 1621F Transport… it’s analog on a silver disc!"
From:
http://www.avshowrooms.com/MBL_DAC_Transport.html
***
As for myself, I have a lot of experience with unamplified live music, and to me analog does not sound closer to reality than digital, even though it can be very good indeed. And when it comes to the representation of ambience and 'air', I do actually find CD, as it now sounds in my system, truer to the real thing, even though initially I was more impressed with analog in that respect, see my post #38 on this page:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ravicini-regarding-the-state-of-digital/page4
Seems simple enough to me - just resist the temptation to present opinions on the merits of analogue versus digital.
For the OP question, my vote is for the dynamic range of CD being sufficient "for most purposes". It certainly is for my own usual genres and listening circumstances. It's adequate for distribution, with a little care taken in production. I'd be happier with 16/48 or 24/48, but they aren't popular so I'd settle for 24/96. I wouldn't use anything less than 24/96 for original capture (recording) if there is going to be any processing before distribution.
Attachments
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I'm going to an interesting meeting tonight given by JJ and hosted by the local AES chapter.
Dynamic Range - How LOW can you go?
(Or... What does soft mean, and what does loud mean?)
Dynamic Range - How LOW can you go?
(Or... What does soft mean, and what does loud mean?)
Maybe we are forgetting the "dynamic contrast": Difference between your noise floor and the maximum peak.
Very easy to notice in high resolution like 24/192 and DSD. Not so on Redbook resolution and of course never on MP3...
Roch
Very easy to notice in high resolution like 24/192 and DSD. Not so on Redbook resolution and of course never on MP3...
Roch
I thought I did. Oh well, I guess I have to try again. My thought process doesn't anchor on IMD vs HD. My starting point is that I simply hear more from 24bit as I recorded it than the down converted version of it. That I attribute to resolution. From that point you can ask, why should the decimation make these things sound less apparent? Because parts of it are no longer there and the blanks are being filled in by approximations based on rounding or being filled out by randomizing noise (dither). They've been replaced but not exactly. Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing per se. The guitar still sounds like a guitar. The same guitar and the same guitarist at that, just not the same as the original because it isn't and that can't be debated.
Note that I am coming from an ADAC perspective like I posted earlier as in my mind the two shouldn't be considered separately because of the input Xmax, Xmin factor. Man I suck at analogies but since I am doing so poorly explaining what's in my head on this keyboard I must resort to one. You know when you're watching on a plain jane TV (720x480/30fps) and you can still tell if something was shot on film vs something shot on native NTSC? It's sort of like that. The telecine process (downconversion analogy) gives you enough information to make the judgement but you will lose detail compared to seeing the film in its original form. Now since you can still appreciate the cinematography of the film as watched on a TV and still enjoy the movie as a whole you could say the TV is sufficient/adequate and you wouldn't be wrong. What you can't say is that it is as good and definitely not say it is better if you are now in an A/B situation. The brain after all is the most powerful filter. Heck it can even make you imagine things that were never there in the first place and not just fill in the blanks.
Now imagine what we hear knowing that that whole band or orchestra playing at the same time is represented by a voltage. Imagine how small these voltage changes are that represent you, your drummer, your bassist and your vocalist at any given point in time. The components see nothing but the differences in pressure converted to changes in voltage, quantized, coded, decoded and converted back to voltage then pressure. The more accurately you can quantize the voltage level changes the better that's the common sense thing we all agree on but now before coding we have two discreet sets of information being time and amplitude. Infinite to limited and we're filling in the blanks or rather the gear is sometimes with choices made available to the user. I have my propeller beanie on now so I'll take it off. Now I'm Jack enjoying a cold San Miguel beer on a hot night and not Jack soloing tracks with a scrunched up face because things don't sound right and I'm trying to figure out what I screwed up. Poor as my brain is at instantly figuring out what is wrong, it is great for me and everybody else at instinctively knowing when something isn't right. Again just like I can watch through that on a TV and listen through that with a decimated copy in ultimate terms that doesn't mean its as good.
As hobbyists the fun is in not settling as the process is as much a part as the results maybe that is the behavior you find curious. In all honesty I don't blame you. I laugh at myself quite a bit because of the extent at which I pursue things. Beer in hand and when everything sounds right however, all that craziness becomes worth it. It's a diversion after all.
Jack,
Perhaps because your playback system has better sound quality at 88 or 96. It would be interesting to transcode these 176 or 192 files to 88 or 96 and look if they sound more energetic in your system.
Unfortunately some people have this opinion because the most known 192 files are the Reference Recording HiRez samples and they are are not enthusiastic music for many audiophiles.
Anything's possible micro. At this point in time I don't know if it is my DACs or my files. My impressions are consistent however between my 4 different DACs so either all of them are better performers at 88 or 96 than 176 or 192 or I just prefer 88 and 96. If its the latter then I guess I can call myself lucky. I save a few bucks.
Unfortunately it seems that you already turned it into another D/A debate - it is when we ask you to substantiate your claims and clarify your vague references to "math" that it seems to get "snarky". All we are asking is for you to actually present your maths.
Jack, I must be missing something important, because that read like an elaborate version of the old sampling fallacy that sees digital as a series of stairsteps, with lost information between them, and, therefore, the faster the sampling, the lower the loss, the closer to real...
But I know you know that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sampling and that if it were true, the faster the sampling, the better the output would be. 192 would have to be better than 88. Yeah, I'm confused...
Tim
But I know you know that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sampling and that if it were true, the faster the sampling, the better the output would be. 192 would have to be better than 88. Yeah, I'm confused...
Tim
Similar threads
