[gbaby]

Yeah differences in the levels of recording is very dangerous when doing comparisons because we tend to think we like the louder one but that does not mean it's the better recording/mixing/mastering. A lot of the poorly done high res material is louder (it's an alarming trend today even at CD resolution) which people think is better but if you start to factor that out and do as best as possible to level match the differences are much harder to detect but there.

A very well recorded and mixed album, when done right and released at different resolutions, the higher resolution tends to have more depth, or air in the recording giving an overall larger presentation. I find the highs more natural but these are things that don't immediately stand out and in most cases if not done under critical listening conditions you would never know otherwise which is why it's understandable that the whole high res thing just isn't worth it to a lot of people because it's not an immediate oh wow like say a hardware upgrade such as a new pair of speakers, etc. can be not to mention the incredible inconsistency with high res releases.

A well recorded 5.1 SACD is about the only hi res I find enjoyable, but even that is most likely a disc of a genre that I have no interest. Therefore, well recorded red book CD is fine with me as long as I am playing it as an imported .aiff file on my BDP-3.

[brucek]

I own a bunch of hi res downloads and SACDs from both HDTracks and Acoustic Sounds. None sound better than a well mastered PCM 44.1/16 disc or file. This is just my personal observation. To me, hi res sounds different, maybe even louder than rebook, however, not necessarily better. But, there is an inaccuracy in the sound that I just can't define.

Yeah, technology continues to get better, but human hearing is fixed, so the 44.1Khz sampling is all that's necessary as it offers a bandwidth of about 20Khz. If you play with the Nyquist formula it includes guard bands and lock possibilities, but ends up about 20Khz. I know I can't hear that high, and not many can. No reason to sample any higher as far as I can see. You also have to consider that higher bandwidth systems can pass signals that may exist above 20 Khz (noise from switch-mode power amplifiers, etc). There's no sensible reason to pass this information to the digital signal.

When you consider the bits, a true 16 bits is quite hard to achieve. Everything has to be perfect. The theoretical noise floor for an A/D converter is fixed and a function of its bit resolution. A 16 bit A/D converter is 98 dB, and a 24 bit is 147 dB.
Regardless of the input amplitudes to an A/D convertor, the LSB and many bits above that reside in the region of thermal noise that the resistors around the A/D are generating, so most of those bits are lost in the noise, and that's with a pristine analog recording (which is a huge factor in this equation).  So a 24 bit converter is 24 bits in name only, and they'll be lucky to get 16 bits out of it.

So anything more than 44.1K sampling is beyond human hearing, and anything beyond 16 bits is sacrificed to the noise floor.

The fact that you tell us that: "None sound better than a well mastered PCM 44.1/16 disc or file" tells us that you are a critical and honest listener and not persuaded by the hype.

brucek

[gbaby]

The fact that you tell us that: "None sound better than a well mastered PCM 44.1/16 disc or file" tells us that you are a critical and honest listener and not persuaded by the hype.

brucek

Thank you Brucek. I am a critical listener with neutral speakers and hopefully neutral electronics all by Bryston except for my Krell 5 channel amp. And yes, after experimentation with all kinds of hi res at my own expense, I had to trust my ears. I appreciate your saying that I am an honest listener. I have found folks don't appreciate candor, but I don't know of any other way to be. Long live natural sound 44.1/16 PCM. It has taken me years to reach this conclusion which James Tanner tried to explain for years. His candor got him criticized, but I have enough discernment to understand his position. I have quit chasing codecs.

[dminches]

So anything more than 44.1K sampling is beyond human hearing, and anything beyond 16 bits is sacrificed to the noise floor.

The fact that you tell us that: "None sound better than a well mastered PCM 44.1/16 disc or file" tells us that you are a critical and honest listener and not persuaded by the hype.

brucek

So all the studios mastering, editing, and releasing at 192/24 are wasting their time?  They would disagree with you.

[gbaby]

So all the studios mastering, editing, and releasing at 192/24 are wasting their time?  They would disagree with you.

That is done so there is no sound degradation during the editing process. But, the end result is 44.1/16. 

[dminches]

That is done so there is no sound degradation during the editing process. But, the end result is 44.1/16. 

The end result is not always 44.1/16.

I am glad you prefer that but realize that is your personal preference and not an absolute truth.

[Rod_S]

You guys can't have it both ways, you can't praise James for the 44.1/16 bit logic while at the same time having no issue with Bryston then using 24/192 and above DACs. The BDA-3 by the way is 32/384 capable so according to brucek's logic that's mostly garbage and people are wasting their money on the unit if the ideal human resolvable resolution is more or less reached via a 16/44.1 DAC. So if Bryston was doing right by the consumer they would only be including DAC's capable of 16/44.1 and if none exist then they should be creating them themselves for use in their own products.

[brucek]

... so according to brucek's logic.....

hehe, well it's hardly my logic. It's simply the standard, well understood, engineering mathematics of audio and the limitations of human hearing.

Do you have math that refutes it?

brucek

[dminches]

hehe, well it's hardly my logic. It's simply the standard, well understood, engineering mathematics of audio and the limitations of human hearing.

Do you have math that refutes it?

brucek

I trust my ears more than the math.  Our brains can decipher things that may not simply show up in a formula.

[Rod_S]

hehe, well it's hardly my logic. It's simply the standard, well understood, engineering mathematics of audio and the limitations of human hearing.

Do you have math that refutes it?

brucek

I'm not refuting the math or taking a jab at you in case it came across that way, I'm not. I'm just saying if a company is supposedly making products to accommodate the real limitations of human hearing then they shouldn't also be touting 32/384 DAC's and audio players The stance should be such nonsense is a waste of money and we as a company will not stoop to the marketing hyperbole spewed by other companies to attract customers because any consumer who believes in such nonsense is not our target audience so please look elsewhere if you want to waste your hard earned dollars 

[James Tanner]

Hi Folks

If we built DACs limited to 44.1 we would never sell a DAC. Realities of the market place.

James

[brucek]

I'm just saying if a company is supposedly making products to accommodate the real limitations of human hearing then they shouldn't also be touting 32/384 DAC's and audio players The stance should be such nonsense is a waste of money and we as a company will not stoop to the marketing hyperbole spewed by other companies to attract customers because any consumer who believes in such nonsense is not our target audience so please look elsewhere if you want to waste your hard earned dollars 

Rod_S, your faith in audio companies is laudable. I'm afraid I can't completely agree, since I do read the blurbs on many audio accessory company sites and their information is complete baloney. Companies that offer after market power cords comes to mind. It's complete nonsense, and so their goal is obviously profit, since these cords add nothing to the audio signal. They do look nice though, so you're not completely wasting your money.

Seriously, if one company offers a higher bit rate on a product, the next company is required to follow if they want to stay in business. Don't believe everything these companies tell you. Do some research and make up your mind.

brucek

[gbaby]

The end result is not always 44.1/16.

It is red book for which I am referring to. I buy a great deal of CDs and import them all. They are cheap and sound great. I am buying all the 5 Classic rock CDs and recently purchased a 5 CD jazz CD set of Freddie Hubbard on Bluenote. The sound is excellent. I am never wanting to listen to hi res and I own a great deal of it. I think its my equipment.

[gbaby]

You guys can't have it both ways, you can't praise James for the 44.1/16 bit logic while at the same time having no issue with Bryston then using 24/192 and above DACs. The BDA-3 by the way is 32/384 capable so according to brucek's logic that's mostly garbage and people are wasting their money on the unit if the ideal human resolvable resolution is more or less reached via a 16/44.1 DAC. So if Bryston was doing right by the consumer they would only be including DAC's capable of 16/44.1 and if none exist then they should be creating them themselves for use in their own products.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with praising James for educating us (me in particular) how great regular red book (44.1/16) can sound on properly built electronics and also building units capable of playing 32/384 to accommodate numbers freaks. He was trying to tell us that high sampling rates are not the Holy Grail, and the master recording quality, the  analog section, power supply and other things affect good sound. I don't think you get it. You would have to read some of the older comments on DSD and the like for the SP3. In any event, it took me. while, but now, I get it.

[dminches]

It is for red book which is what I am referring to. I buy a great deal of CDs and import them all. They are cheap and sound great. I am buying all the 5 Classic rock CDs and recently purchased a 5 CD jazz CD set of Freddie Hubbard on Bluenote. The sound is excellent. I am never wanting to listen to hi res and I own a great deal of it. I think its my equipment.

I didn’t realize you were referring to CDs.

Digital makes up about 5% of my listening. I listen to reel to reel and vinyl.  I don’t find digital music emotionally engaging as compared to analog.  YMMB.

[dminches]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with praising James for educating us (me in particular) how great regular red book (44.1/16) can sound on properly built electronics and also building units capable of playing 32/384 to accommodate numbers freaks. He was trying to tell us that high sampling rates are not the Holy Grail, and the master recording quality, the  analog section, power supply and other things affect good sound. I don't think you get it. You would have to read some of the older comments on DSD and the like for the SP3. In any event, it took me. while, but now, I get it.

I don’t think anyone is saying the digital resolution is the holy grail.  However, you are changing the discussion a bit.  Earlier you were basically saying that there is no need for high resolution digital, that red book was as good as it gets.  Correct me if I am wrong in saying that.

Now you are introducing other aspects of a recording what affect the final sound.  No one is arguing that point.  Clearly it all starts with the initial recording.  That’s not what we are talking about.  We are talking about difference in the final “product” whether it be red book or hi res.

[gbaby]

I didn’t realize you were referring to CDs.

I listen to reel to reel and vinyl.  I don’t find digital music emotionally engaging as compared to analog.  YMMB.

Listening to vinyl and reel to reel is a luxury. I think digital has reached a point in its technology that it favorable competes with analog especially when you consider cost, convenience and overall sound quality. I can listen to 20 different compositions from different albums while you are playing one vinyl. I can skip whereas you have to fast forward. You have to worry about azimuth adjustments, cartridges, stylus, cleaning records, demagnetizing, cleaning heads, changing belts and a plethora of other issues. This is 2019 and I refuse to put up with what I went through in the '70s.  Analog is just too limiting for me. When I was playing the red book edition of Freddie Hubbard's CD, "Open Sesame,"  from the Bluenote label on the BDA3, it sounded like it was playing on an AR turntable back in the day. There was great imaging, depth and soundstage without the hiss and scratches. Sounds great. 

[gbaby]

 Delete

[gbaby]

I don’t think anyone is saying the digital resolution is the holy grail.  However, you are changing the discussion a bit.  Earlier you were basically saying that there is no need for high resolution digital, that red book was as good as it gets.  Correct me if I am wrong in saying that.

Just a misinterpretation. But, its not the end of the world.

[Rod_S]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with praising James for educating us (me in particular) how great regular red book (44.1/16) can sound on properly built electronics and also building units capable of playing 32/384 to accommodate numbers freaks. He was trying to tell us that high sampling rates are not the Holy Grail, and the master recording quality, the  analog section, power supply and other things affect good sound. I don't think you get it. You would have to read some of the older comments on DSD and the like for the SP3. In any event, it took me. while, but now, I get it.

I get what you are saying but again you need to be careful because there was probably no mention of what downsampling or up sampling does to that pure original 16/44.1 signal. For example on the SP4, I believe James mentioned it processes a 44.1/16 signal internally at the native resolution being input (obviously providing it's not above 48/24) however it may well be that when that hits the DACs it's upsampled. I don't know. So if there is anything in your signal chain that is doing any form up or downsampling those are points which can introduce noise, etc. thus you aren't hearing what the source started out as. Also even worse is if you are going from digital to analog to digital a few times in the signal chain. For example if you have a CD player but are using the analog outs, then you go into a SSP and then apply say Dirac or matrix processing then out to the amps. That signal goes through a DAC (CD player out) to ADC (input of SSP) to another DAC (output of SSP). So if using the SP 4 as an example the signal starts out as 44.1/16 becomes analog then gets digitized at 48/24 then back to analog