[firedog]

Yeah... we get boxes of tape in here every week to transfer. Some are great and some are good. But all are better than CD. Hi-rez digital levels the playing field a bit. Hi-rez digital meaning DSD128fs and DXD.
It's all cumulative. Each bit helps... from the performer, mic choice/set-up, pre, mixing, mastering and even pressing plant. If there is a weak link in the chain, everythng suffers from then on.
30ips 1/2" is the best.....

I will have to add that hi-rez does live up to the hype. But, you have to know what you're listening for. I'm included some files over at "What's Best Forum" to show you what to listen for and how they sound. Remeber, if the rest of your chain isn't up to snuff, including the room, a lot of times you're not going to hear the subtlties between 24/44.1 and 24/88.2 or 176.4

Bruce's thread at http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2938-The-Art-of-Listening-Hi-rez-music

is definitely worth investigation. One thread (the one with the link here) lets you compare redbook to higher res versions of the same music. You can clearly hear the differences, as Bruce says below in the thread:

"Here is a file that we recorded at a native 24/352.8 It starts off with piano/drum. Do not listen to the music! Instead, concentrate on the sticks hitting the cymbal. Listen to the attack/transient of the initial hit. Listen to the tone and then the decay. Focus on just this one element.
Listen to the sound of the cymbals in the room. How big is the room? What kind of space is this drummer in? Listen to the tone of the cymbal.
Now... as you go down to 176.4, then 88.2 and finally 16/44.1, listen to these elements that I talked about above. Listen how the transient attack becomes more dull. Notice how the tone of the cymbal changes from crisp/pristine to dull and flat. Next, notice how the decay becomes shorter and shorter and the "room" becomes smaller and more dry with less reverb."

To my ears, clear proof that the improvement with hi -res is audible.

There's another thread there where Bruce gives examples of original recording, then with EQ, and also with various levels of loudness compression, as demanded by client. Clients wanted the most compressed worst sounding version.

[avahifi]

In the September, 2007 newsletter of the Audio Engineering Society, Brad Miller and David Moran presented a long, detailed, and (what they thought) definitive report regarding the audibility of high bit rate digital audio as compared with standard Redbook.  Their conclusion, given their test methods, was that the ability to reliably pick out high bit rate material (in this case 96/24) from standard 44/16 was random.  Thus there was no musical advantage to what all of us interested in this are trying to accomplish.

For a long time I was satisfied that they were correct and that their study was foolproof.

However a closer look at their test setup recently reveals that a fatal assumption was made.

Their setup used a "highly regarded" SACD player as the source playing either 96/24 SACD or DVD Audio discs.  The analog output of the player was then sent (via an ABX box) to the audio preamp and power amp and speakers.  The analog output was also sent to an ADA converter (analog to digital to analog) which converted the analog audio from the SACD player back to 16 bit 44K digital and then back to analog again.  This output was also sent to the ABX box.

The user could select the playback from either direct 96/24 from the SACD player, or reworked 44/16 from the ADA converter.  Of course which one was being selected was not reveled to the listeners.  Thus the true double blind nature of the test.

Meyer/Moran pointed out that if the ADA box was doing any musical damage, that should have tipped the findings even further in favor of the direct analog output from the 96/44 source playing in the SACD player.  It did not.

The conclusion then reached was that there was no audible difference between 96/24 and 44/16 digital.

The bad assumption made was that the source SACD player was essentially perfect.  Unfortunately, it likely is not.

Since that study was made, we have learned how to intercept the digital data stream from an SACD player ahead of its internal D to A converters, digital filters, and analog output circuits (something in general not allowed by the format).

When we do this, substituting our own DAC for that built into the SACD player, we can realize obviously better musicality.  For sure the SACD player's analog audio output is not the living end!

Thus, all this study likely shows is that the analog output of the SACD player used in this test likely was not of adequate resolution and linearity to distinguish the difference between standard and high bit rate digital source material.

To draw any meaningful conclusions, the test process should be repeated using a foolproof high bit rate source and a foolproof way of making the comparisons.  Unfortunately, this highly regarded test does not do that.

Best regards,

Frank Van Alstine

PS I have a .pdf copy of the complete test if anyone is interested.

[MarkgM]

Hi,
It's been an interesting thread - many things said.  I would like to stand up for vinyl, because of what its strengths are, but I think people get stuck on its weaknesses, and maybe that comes from "digital expectations". 

Timing is everything. 

Human hearing has been found to pick up on 5 uS time differences in empirical testing.  The sampling rate of a CD (redbook), at 16/44.1 gives us one sample each 22.5 uS.  Human hearing is known to be about 5 times faster than the sampling rate of a compact disc. 

Three things are being quantized.  Frequency, amplitude, and phase.  You all know about the dynamic range and related issues (from talk here at least), but take a look at phase.  The basic 16-bit sample is IIRC only recreating phase to the nearest 90 degrees.  In order to do better than that, redbook's dithering information has to be used, which brings sample depth to 19 bits when used.  What this also does is recreate phase to the nearest degree.  I do not believe any commercial digital player existed prior to 1995 that even did dithering, in spite of the fact that this was a part of the original redbook specification/format.

I have argued with a fellow who knows this digital technology very intimately who thinks that when the phase is perfect (or that good), then everything is perfect, but maybe that is what happens when we know - sometimes we can't know more?  Redbook is not enough.  Sounds can begin, change and end between samples, and does it matter what anybody's samples have to say about that?

I have heard the difference, and I know others who also have, just when moving from 44.1 to 48 Hz.  Moving to 24/96 is where I would agree that I call that overall good sound quality.  But when it gets to 192 KHz, it is comparable to vinyl in the specific way that vinyl has always been better. 

We're also still on paper here.  I'm not waging debate with the marketplace as it stands right now (here).  I'm sure that's easy enough to do.  I do have a friend who reports to me that management in the recording studio is where mastering and remastering go wrong, such as by not paying for it to be done right (such as to push it all up to 384 KHz and remove the HF, and then bring it back down).

I guess we have to figure out which has what, and know what to listen for.  (I am also curious, since I don't do recording, what is a mic cue?  I hear the sounds of mics/tracks being added and removed when listening to redbook fairly often.  Are those "mic cues"? )

Have you even had a case of digititis?  These days, it just doesn't happen as much, because most players are better than any players that existed, at all, 15 to 25 years ago.  I want to hear young people scream when I think about it.  No, I'm kidding.  Let's say it was pretty bad, because the players just weren't there.  There was not enough speed in any digital audio equipment outside of military radar in the 80s.

Once the redbook players got good, I have to say I began to find redbook palpable, and where I didn't want to tear people eyes out after hearing too much of it.  With better amplification as well, this is turning out to be quite a sound party. 

The vinyl advantage is that it has no sampling rate.  It's got its own distortion, but I can hear and feel the difference in time and dynamics and sound quality that can come with good vinyl.  I can also hear, imho, based upon samples made by a friend I've listened to, how 192 KHz is comparable to vinyl in its own best suit.

All the equipment is getter better.  Its a big world, but I don't mind going forward into it.  I think high speed digital and modern electronics is making very good sound for a lot of people, and for $ much less than before.

Cheers,
Mark

[MarkgM]

For a long time I was satisfied that they were correct and that their study was foolproof.

What double-blind tests survive peer review?  (I think they tend to do very badly that way)

Cheers,
Mark

[ted_b]

MarkgM,
Although I love the sound of vinyl, it would be difficult to argue that it has anywhere near the s/n and dynamic range of cd, let alone hirez.  Mark Waldrep, AIX founder, likens it to 12 bit and says it's top s/n (even before pops and clicks) is 65 db and it's dynamic range is tops at 60 db, less than half the higher rez formats. 

I'm asking not to start a vinyl vs digital debate (in fact, against my bylaws when asked to put this Circle together), vinyl has its place, and indeed it's own Circle.  But this Circle, and this thread, is all about hirez digital and whether the specs and incredible amounts of data involved in hirez actually make their way to a musical experience.  Thanks.

[MarkgM]

MarkgM,

I'm asking not to start a vinyl vs digital debate (in fact, against my bylaws when asked to put this Circle together), vinyl has its place, and indeed it's own Circle.  But this Circle, and this thread, is all about hirez digital and whether the specs and incredible amounts of data involved in hirez actually make their way to a musical experience.  Thanks.

No debate intended.  I'm putting both my knowledge and experiences of the two here, because vinyl has been pronounced dead a few times in this thread.  You know, these are simply competing advantages, and you have pointed out superiorities of digital.  I would add that the maintenance goes way down. 

When I listen to vinyl, I know there's distortion in that - I can hear it.  I think I can also hear what vinyl can do that redbook cannot.  For example, there are complex, high frequency sounds that I don't think redbook is fast enough for, and the designers of hirez know this, and that is why they made hirez.  Human hearing is simply faster than that.  And also, with more of a dynamic range.  I believe the rule of thumb on the dynamic range of human hearing today is 120 dB, but I believe that has not been recognized for more than 10-15 years.  Once again - the digital gets the advantage.  Are you ok with that?

As I say.  No debate intended.  I am not asking anyone here to say that one is better than the other.  People have been offering that since the beginning.  I am also including some very straight talk here, and not so much huff and personal opinion.  I've provided detail to help people understand the matter on paper.  For example, 192 KHz is about the same speed as the speed of human hearing measured in tests - 5 uS samples.  Do what you will with it - it is not intended as taking a side in anything, or in any way of creating an argument. 

Good day -
Mark

[ted_b]

Mark, Thanks.  I understand.  And yes, more than a few folks have told me that 24/192k seems to be a "live' threshold, where music takes on whatever magic we observe in vinyl, live music, etc.

[MarkgM]

Mark, Thanks.  I understand.  And yes, more than a few folks have told me that 24/192k seems to be a "live' threshold, where music takes on whatever magic we observe in vinyl, live music, etc.

Well, ted, I hope I didn't overreact. I didn't want to look like some kind of vinyl troll walking in.  Actually, I came across this thread from a link in another one, in diskless (and got interested).

I couldn't perceive the vinyl advantage between the distortion at first, but did learn about it, and then my perception of it developed.  I started with the above knowledge, and aimed to perceive it, and I did. In my experience, the analog timing can really improve the high treble and I like the attacks.  Half of my vinyl doesn't seem to have very good sound quality right out of the jacket.

However... I am moving to higher quality sound right now for whatever sources.  The amp I'm using now (tk2050) has very high resolution, and these fuselier speakers seem very revealing of upstream stuff.  (Frickin persnickety, too)  This kind of amplification also makes me listen to redbook all over again, for being better than it has ever been before (for me).  I have to catch up.

Competing advantages serve a place that I think looks more like electronics.  There are many ways to do things, and each one is exercising some kind of advantage.  All in all, I think modern digital is very satisfying.  Not only in what it can do, but in what can happen in wide-spread fashion.  I look at the quality of sound anyone can get today for hundreds of $, on the source side, or in the amplification, and it looks to me like some kind of revolution in sound quality.  There are speakers for $140 each by Sony now that have more substantial cabinets and drivers than anything I've seen before at that price.  We'll get some kind of speakers, add cables, and we've got the whole deal.  Related note: I think all the fervor in audio, such as DIY and small manufacturers, and Internet-direct companies and on-line discussions, are all contributing to this result: today's hi fi, which is as good as it has ever been at much lower prices than the same sound quality of yesteryear.  I digress...

Along with this, personally if I am at 24/96, then the ceiling, I think, for sound quality is high enough that I wouldn't have any BIG beef about it.  That being the only source I would have, and I could do that.  Heck, I would choose 48 KHz over 44.1.   As a number of people have already mentioned, just look at the world we live in, with recording quality reflective of an industry going through changes.  I also think in rare cases people will be able to hear the difference between 192 and (faster), due to being able to hear a little faster than what can be done with 192. 

Speaking of which... I think the percentage of digital masters has to have steadily risen.  Perhaps that would be an interesting one to check for the market in general, because as I understand it, it takes twice as much work to move from analog to digital than to stay in one domain. 

[Geardaddy]

Very interesting data guys.  This is what I wanted to hear.  I started the thread for the sake of education (mine) and chose a slightly inflammatory title to stimulate discussion on the pros and cons.

Mark, I really appreciated the data on analog and human hearing.  I did in fact tilt things towards an analog vs digital discussion with my references to master tape.  I am still awaiting a tape head to chime in who still actively uses tape but also dabbles in hi rez.

So, 24/192 sounds like the veil between digital and analog sound.  Has anyone experienced even higher resolution content in their systems?

[MarkgM]

Excellent points by Skunark.
Another one is if our DAC is capable of resolving the bit depth.
Cheap ones probably do 11/12 bits accurately, the best ones up to 20.


Here you see one doing 70/6=11.6 correctly

Speaking of the industry... This sounds like another way of saying we aren't done getting redbook right, or at least as good as it can be.  I should fall back and at least say that I can't possibly say I've heard how good redbook can be (or at any higher rate for that matter).

[ted_b]

Very interesting data guys.  This is what I wanted to hear.  I started the thread for the sake of education (mine) and chose a slightly inflammatory title to stimulate discussion on the pros and cons.

Mark, I really appreciated the data on analog and human hearing.  I did in fact tilt things towards an analog vs digital discussion with my references to master tape.  I am still awaiting a tape head to chime in who still actively uses tape but also dabbles in hi rez.

So, 24/192 sounds like the veil between digital and analog sound.  Has anyone experienced even higher resolution content in their systems?

One of the DACs I have here, the M2tech Young DAC, does 32/384 and I've played some, but can't yet determine if it's any better as the content is not exactly my cup of tea, nor is familiar enough to discern the subtleties were up against.

[MarkgM]

Very interesting data guys.  This is what I wanted to hear.  I started the thread for the sake of education (mine) and chose a slightly inflammatory title to stimulate discussion on the pros and cons.

Mark, I really appreciated the data on analog and human hearing.  I did in fact tilt things towards an analog vs digital discussion with my references to master tape.  I am still awaiting a tape head to chime in who still actively uses tape but also dabbles in hi rez.

So, 24/192 sounds like the veil between digital and analog sound.  Has anyone experienced even higher resolution content in their systems?

I know I've heard it said that nothing beats 30 IPS 1/2" tape (not just in this thread).  Tapes also introduce the issue of how long they last.  The matter of getting sound to you, and me, from an analog tape is another interesting question.  That should be digitally remastered before making the discs we buy.

"A veil" - well, one of many, no doubt.

[Robin Hood]

I have a little tutorial set up over at "What's Best Forum" where I show you can be "tricked" into thinking it's hi-rez.
I even ripped a CD, upsampled it, ran it through our Neve console and captured in hi-rez. By looking at the FFT, you would swear it was hi-rez.

We try to be the gate-keepers on what is good hi-rez and what is not. Sometimes the levels are so low that we have to do gain changes, window changes, different smoothing and such just on 1 album. We've had albums where 4-5 tracks were upsampled and the rest hi-rez. Guess you never know what comes through the door next!

Besides using your ears, how do gate-keepers discern what is good high rez from what is bad high rez?

[simon wagstaff]

I hear a bigger difference going from 16 to 24 bit as opposed to going from 48 to 96 sampling rate. I listen to a lot of hi rez audience recordings. Apart from the better imaging and smoother sound the one thing that is always a dead give-away as to the benefits of higher rex formats is the prominence of the audience chatter in the background. With 24/96 is it much more annoying, better resolved...

[bdiament]

Some random thoughts:

Regardless of the format, it is a mistake to confuse signal to noise ratio with dynamic range.

We should also not confuse macro dynamics (the outer - or upper part of the envelope) with micro dynamics, which occur within the macro range and are not necessarily governed by the macro. 

And then there are the recordings themselves.  With most recordings the major labels are issuing today, we'd be fortunate to get 12 dB.  Most current major label pop can't do 10 dB downhill with the wind behind it.

Same with things like word length and sample rate specs in converter chips.  By themselves, they are mere numbers that tell us nothing about the potential of the device.  Higher sample rates, for example, will increase demands on clocking and on analog stage performance at wide bandwidth.  Most of the devices I've experienced that are spec'd for 192 (including some pro devices) sound worse at this rate than they do at lower rates.  And a lot of software just isn't doing 24-bits very cleanly.

Isn't 24/192 better?  It can be.  It can be superb; the very best I've ever heard.  It can also be considerably worse.
Remember when manufacturers spec'd their amps for "instantaneous peak power" and silly things like that?  We had amps rated for hundreds of watts or more that in fact started clutching their chests at ten watts.

The numbers can have a value but only in the context of the entire design, under real world operating conditions.  Outside of that, they are only marketing tools to be used on the unwary.

All this to say that in my experience, evaluating a format (or device) based on numbers will not necessarily produce the same conclusions as sitting down and listening to some music via that format or device and doing so in a variety of contexts.  (If I based my conclusions about 24/192  - or even analog - on only a small sample, I would likely not feel about them as I do today.)

As always, just my perspective.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[Mike Nomad]

~

[skunark]

It seems like we are discussing two topics here.. One is the merits behind the recording, are they solid or flawed?  The second, can a high-rez file provide enough benefit to justify the hype over CD?  over vinyl?

There is a direct link between bit depth to the dynamic range and the dynamic range to the signal-to-noise ratio.  You can actually use one to calculate the approximate of the other and assuming you also include the SNR from the analog source, noise (and jitter) are all additive.   The larger the bit-depth and/or the faster the sampling frequency will minimize the quantize noise which will better the accuracy that the digitized format will recreate the analog waveform.  What amount of noise is acceptable?

Because of the loudness wars, maybe 44.1/16 is over-the-top of what is actually needed?   

[MarkgM]

Regarding signal-to-noise and dynamic range... A couple of things I think are interesting in this discussion come with looking at human hearing.  One was on how fast it is, another is on its loud-to-quiet range. 

The 120 dB human range figure is based upon saying that a human eardrum will, when struck with the tiniest thing, produce an electrical signal in the brain, and so 0 dB is where it starts.  After 120 dB, I think it goes into defending itself.  Now I'm looking it up in the modern day - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range - human dynamic range.  Now they're saying 140 dB, but it has levels within it.  Up to so many dB in one way, and then another level of ear function within that that gives more.  Btw: An interesting read.

Along with the timing issue, I think we will be very sensitive to transient attacks, decays, and interesting odds and ends like minor variations in tempo.  On tone, OTOH, I think we do pretty badly compared to the machines.  I think the machine beats the human every time when it comes to discerning something like 800 versus 801 Hz.

edit-add: a reference from that wiki page...
7. Fries, Bruce; Marty Fries (2005). Digital Audio Essentials. O'Reilly Media. pp. 147. ISBN 0596008562. http://books.google.com/books?id=w0vsd5z2Rg4C&pg=PA147. "Digital audio at 16-bit resolution has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB, but the actual dynamic range is usually lower because of overhead from filters that are built into most audio systems." ... "Audio CDs achieve about a 90-dB signal-to-noise ratio."

But do they really?

[MarkgM]

Just looking at reel to reel tape. 
From a wiki entry: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Bit_Depth#Reel_to_Reel

" 30 ips with Dolby A: 11 bit "

I'm curious... How much would 11 bit be?

(looks like someone started the above page, but there are a lot of blanks on it)

Here's another, with a table going up to 120 IPS in specialized apps with tape...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_tape_specifications#Tape_speeds

The thing is, even though I'm seeing 11 bit depth, I remember how good and how quiet my revox cassette player used to be, using metal cassettes.  It was so quiet for a cassette.  (That's at 1 7/8 ips).  I had a Teac reel to reel (in the 80s) that I thought did very well, using it up to 15 ips, but I don't have a way to compare it to anything that has happened in the last 20 years.   

There seem to be a lot of points rising to the effect that the world we are experiencing, ito sound quality, is not the "ceiling of the format", but of the world of gear we live in, and the human perception of sound, or that to some extent we are swimming within our own formats and experiencing a world of variation just trying to get them right. 

I look forward to a world of 192 KHz, but how much music is like that (right now)?  Or gear? 

Here is one general statement I would be willing to make... I think that getting things right in the gear is happening more and more as we go.  I think there have been some great advancements in the last 15 years.  As it is, I have to go back over my music now with some new equipment.  But also, those advancements are taking place across a playing field - audio electronics - so large I don't know if anyone can know it.

Here's to hoping its a musical experience in any age,
Mark

[Geardaddy]

You're on a roll Mark...

Speaking of the industry... This sounds like another way of saying we aren't done getting redbook right, or at least as good as it can be.  I should fall back and at least say that I can't possibly say I've heard how good redbook can be (or at any higher rate for that matter).

I agree that Redbook is not being maximized, partly due to poor execution as an engineering friends claims and partly due to technical failures such as bit depth resolution.  I have a small subset of CDs where the resolution and dynamics is stunning.  If we all had CDs produced like that, no one would be jonesing for hi rez....

There seem to be a lot of points rising to the effect that the world we are experiencing, ito sound quality, is not the "ceiling of the format", but of the world of gear we live in, and the human perception of sound, or that to some extent we are swimming within our own formats and experiencing a world of variation just trying to get them right. 

That has been my precise experience in the last several years.  As my gear has gotten better, my experience of Redbook, my primary music source, has improved radically.  That is part of the reason why I referenced the Nordost software that correlates changes in digital performance (jitter, etc) with changes in gear.  We finally have a window into why cables, conditioner, power supplies, etc all make a difference.  I have some friends farting around with a new conditioning technology from Dale Pitcher that makes digital "listenable."  This is coming from one analog tape guy who hates digital period and another who owns 10,000 records.  I also have friends who own the grounding schemes (whole house ionic grounding schemes) and dedicated EMI/RFI passive filtration systems like the Tripoint Troy, and they sing the same song.  Very interesting....