[JerryM]

Jerry,

I think the fundamental problem here is that the 44.1 format is being crucified here and it's a victim of circumstance. Again, for the most part (and there certainly are exceptions) the CD is for the masses, reduced in dynamic range to play even on a cheap boom box.

The hirez format has only one goal in mind, to satisfy the audiophile. So the real question in my mind is, are we all victims in a cruel plot, to believe that one medium is better then the other, knowing that one may have been under manipulation, for the purpose of satisfyingly the common masses.

That does not prove that one format is better then the other. It simply means that each has it's own purpose.

How can we scientifically evaluate each format, when the rules of engagement are different from the very beginning.

Wayner

Wayner,

I agree entirely. 

What Redbook is capable of has never been realized. High Resolution audio is a means to an end; an *end-around*, as it were. The Redbook format has been hijacked, and only we audiofools demand better. High resolution delivers that "better". But ol' Neil Young has come forward and said we're getting hosed, even in this arena.

You're damned fortunate to be a vinyl guy, Wayner. 

Have fun,

Jerry

[*Scotty*]

It would help to clarify the situation if we asked what requirements need to be met by a digital recording medium. I think ideally it would be nice if we could have a usable dynamic range of 100dB before distortion levels exceeded 3%THD on the lowest level signals. The lower distortion limit is set by the number bits left to describe the signals waveform at -100dB.
 Rough division of 100dB by approximately 6dB per bit gives us budget of 16.6 bits needed to reach -100dB with about 7.4bits left over to describe a -100dB waveform. This is a way better place to be than what you have left at -60dB in a 16bit system which is 6bits and better than 3%THD at -60.
As you can see we really only need to deal with perhaps the first 18 bits of a 24bit medium to have a real 100dB of acceptably low distortion dynamic range.
 With a real 100db of usable low distortion dynamic range we can have an average recording level of -40 or -50 dB with perhaps as much as 50 dB of headroom to capture peaks without hitting the wall at 0dB.
You could maybe make a recording without using any compression or peak limiting thereby preserving the dynamic range of the performance as you would have heard it had you been present when the recording took place. 
 If the 24bit medium was actually properly utilized the HI-REZ recordings we play back in our homes would sound a great deal more like real life. In addition the greatly abused marketing phrase "Digital Ready" might acquire some real validity when it it is used. The term would imply that the what ever piece of gear it was applied to could handle the potential demands of a recording with as much as 100dB of dynamic range.
 Regardless of how loud you played back a given recording it would sound more alive than many of the compressed recordings we currently have available to us.
 I can envision a place for variable compression via software during late night listening sessions.
Hopefully trebejo can correct my potential mathematical errors and perhaps give us a real world THD number to go with 7.4bits at -100dB in a 24bit context.
It would also be helpful if Russell could comment on what advantages mastering with 24 bit system vs a 16bit system gives a recording engineer.
Scotty

[trebejo]

How can we scientifically evaluate each format, when the rules of engagement are different from the very beginning.

Yes, I read somebody's suggestion that you take a 192 signal and downsample it to 44 and then route it through the DAC, and do an a/b test on those two signals. In principle, that should give a good test.

[trebejo]

Hopefully trebejo can correct my potential mathematical errors and perhaps give us a real world THD number to go with 7.4bits at -100dB in a 24bit context.

If I had to grade it I would have to give you an "A". 

btw our listening experiences are affected by room noise, as mentioned earlier. However I had forgotten about using truly excellent headphones, that's a setting where the ambient noise floor could potentially be dramatically lowered.

Now here's a question for which I'm sure I do not know the answer. If you turn up your volume knob to the max when there is no input signal, you hear some hiss from your speakers, maybe by getting up really close to the cones. What is the sound level of that hiss, 60 db or so below "0"? 100 db? It obviously depends on the amp, preamp, speakers, etc. ...

[*Scotty*]

trebejo , I have about 96dB sensitive speakers and a zero gain active SS buffer. From the digital input on the preamp, in my case playback of wave files via Rhythmbox on an eeBuntu platform from a USB dac, I am guessing at least -95db broadband, the MM phono-stage might be -75dB, if it was A weighted it would probably look much better. Best case in the room noise floor looks like 40dB of ambient noise degrading to 50 to 55dB worst case. 
 Your point is taken,if we have a fully utilized 100dB dynamic range with an average signal level of -50dB which corresponds to a 65dB in room listening level we will have 115 db peak SPLs if the 50dB of available upward  dynamic range is used. We may also loose the softest passages into the ambient noise floor of the listening room. In my room, I might have a best case usable system dynamic range of 75 dB if the peak in room SPL is 115dB.
 Obviously this would look better by some 10dB if I could reach 120dB or 125dB.
Interestingly if vinyl has a 65dB dynamic range due to vinyl's noise floor limitations it will comfortably fit within my "systems" parameters and I won't run out of headroom, theoretically speaking.
Scotty

[Crimson]

.

[trebejo]

That's better.

[MoonUnit]

I think the emphasis on dynamic range (both in the article and in the original discussion) is a bit of a side issue. The problem with 16 bit audio isn't dynamic range, it's quantization. Shannon's theorem assumes real numbers, not a quantized representation.

It's easy to test the difference... buy some AAC tracks off iTunes (preferably ones created with 24 bit source material, aka. "Mastered for iTunes", but it actually doesn't really matter... any AAC source material will do) and play around with switching your sound card from 16 bit to 24 bit and back again. (On Macs you can do this easily with "Audio MIDI Setup".) The iTunes AAC decoder operates in floating point up to the quantization stage. I think the difference between 16 and 24 bit requantized music is pretty readily audible on a lot of material. Your mileage may vary.

[avahifi]

I have requested that the offensive post be removed, and that serious thought be given about the poster too.

Frank Van Alstine

[audiobat]

Yes lets have a nice "uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products" in our new high resolution music we are buying. Music, I would like to add, we are now going to pay for again! We bought it on CD, then we bought the SACD and may have even bought the DVD Audio, now we are going to buy it on the newest "best" source, "high resolution downloads"?

I would like to add that we also bought equipment to play back all these different formats on. Thousands and thousands of dollars!

During the SACD fad I quickly found that certain SACD's sounded much better than others, as I examined the reasons I found that these (mostly old Jazz) were SACD's made from the original master tapes.

I just sold my $15,000 CD SACD player and will be 100% analog from now on and I ain't looking back at all this server driven, computer driven, pack of new lies and bullshit. This is all designed to remove $ from wallet and the sad thing is people actually believe it is better!
I am going to take the money from the sale of my SACD player and buy an Open Reel tape deck and some Master Tape copies, Why?
BECAUSE I HEARD IT, AND HOLY CRAP!     

192kHz considered harmful

192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.

Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

Above: Illustration of distortion products resulting from intermodulation of a 7kHz and a 26.5kHz tone in a system with total harmonic distortion (THD) of about .15% (even and odd components). Distortion products appear throughout the spectrum, including at frequencies lower than either tone.

Inaudible ultrasonics contribute to intermodulation distortion in the audible range (light blue area). Systems not designed to reproduce ultrasonics typically have much higher levels of distortion above 20kHz, further contributing to intermodulation. Widening a design's frequency range to account for ultrasonics requires compromises that decrease noise and distortion performance within the audible spectrum. Either way, unneccessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance.

[rbbert]

It won't be long before the cost of your open reel tape deck ($7500 and up) and tapes ($500 a pop) will far surpass the cost of SACD's and player.  And if you want those tapes to stay in excellent condition you will need a climate controlled room for storage.

In most cases, the hires downloads are the same files as the previously released SACD and/or DVD-A; no need to repurchase them.

[audiobat]

Myths and legend rule in high end audio.

1.) Tapes are $300 two tapes per album, or some I have seen sell one tape at $150.
2.) Funny, back in the day I left my 8 track and then cassette tapes in my black car in the summer sun and in freezing winters for years and never had "problems".
3.) Based on the sound I have heard at shows from R2R I don't care if a tape decks is $7500 or more.

So I buy a $10,000 tape deck and I buy 50 frekin tapes at $300 each for $15,000, total is $25,000.
For $10K above the SACD player what I have heard from master tape playback is worth my money.
I could put $10K into new some new cables, power cables, power conditioning, and some Stillpoints for my components and speakers. Bam, in a heartbeat $10K!

   

[konut]

Myths and legend rule in high end audio.

Don't forget the drama.

[rcag_ils]

Very nice and lengthy discussion. but I am ready for other new topics that are related to old school electronics.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

If you guys want to hear Red Book Cd at its best give a listen to the music at Blue Coast Records.  Cookie Marenco records at low levels so that there is no compression.  I have bought much music that she has produced and engineered.  Here is a link to a sampler Cd that I bought.  You can find some of these disc's cheaper on other sites like cdbaby etc.  There are also red book and and hi rez downloads available.  These Cd's compare favorably to SACD's.  In fact, the CD listed in the link comes in std Cd and SACD and they are comparable in sound.  It is std Cd at its best.


http://bluecoastrecords.com/collectorsedition

http://bluecoastrecords.com/blue-coast-store

Here is a link to some of their artists and music which you can sample and down load.  Much of this music is available on cd.

http://downloadsnow.net/

[doug s.]

Yes lets have a nice "uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products" in our new high resolution music we are buying. Music, I would like to add, we are now going to pay for again! We bought it on CD, then we bought the SACD and may have even bought the DVD Audio, now we are going to buy it on the newest "best" source, "high resolution downloads"?

I would like to add that we also bought equipment to play back all these different formats on. Thousands and thousands of dollars!

During the SACD fad I quickly found that certain SACD's sounded much better than others, as I examined the reasons I found that these (mostly old Jazz) were SACD's made from the original master tapes.

I just sold my $15,000 CD SACD player and will be 100% analog from now on and I ain't looking back at all this server driven, computer driven, pack of new lies and bullshit. This is all designed to remove $ from wallet and the sad thing is people actually believe it is better!
I am going to take the money from the sale of my SACD player and buy an Open Reel tape deck and some Master Tape copies, Why?
BECAUSE I HEARD IT, AND HOLY CRAP!     

i guess you missed my prior post on this subject:

from the article:
"Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, harmonic distortion will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Harmonic distortion in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible."

what the author fails to acknowledge is that ultrasonics have been shown to affect the audible range, even when not distorted.  the goals should not be eliminating the ultrasonics, but reducing the distortion of the amplifiers/speakers/etc., if they negatively impact the sound.  this will make the music sound better - more natural - if the ultrasonics are present, as they are in real life.  it's funny that the author says 24/192 actually sounds worse than 16/44.1.

also, while i am not up to speed on all the technology of 16 vs 24 bits, it is my understanding that 24 bits means there will be less error correction necessary to ensure that "perfect waveform" that the author insists is possible w/16 bits...  and to quote what scotty said in the other prewiously mentioned thread above:
"I will list one reason we need 24 bits. When we use the 16bit format and the signal level goes down to -60dB, as it might do on a reverberation tail, we encounter a level of distortion greater than 3% THD. This is because by the time we get down to negative 60dB we only have 6bits left to describe the waveform out of the 16bits we started with at 0dB.  If we accept a format with 60dB of usable dynamic range with a distortion floor 3% THD well OK,  personally I would rather have the at least 90dB of usable dynamic range that 24bits brings to the table.  I think the article reads like the old perfect sound forever crap that SONY put 30 years ago."

and, the author is the creator of the ogg free software container format and vorbis audio codec and others.  (vorbis is an audio format and codec designed to compete with the patented MP3 and AAC.)  and, he is founder of xiph.org, and works for redhat.com.   you don't think he might not have a dog in this fight, do you?   

ymmv,

doug s.

doug s.

ps - i have zero inwested in hirez, wery few (relatively) cd's; a coupla thousand winyl albums, and most of my music listening is done w/an fm tuna...

[audiobat]

Ummm... audio tuna. I like mine with some pickles, lemon juice and a bit of garlic mayo. 

[doug s.]

Ummm... audio tuna. I like mine with some pickles, lemon juice and a bit of garlic mayo.

i prefer mine w/yagi's.   

presently, listening to wpfw.org/89.3 - their sunday jazz programming is great!     in rotation is the refurb'd modded aligned rotel rht-10:


sorry for the little diwersion...

doug s.

[trebejo]

I think the problem with distortion at frequencies waaay above 20khz was addressed... in an early issue of Audio Basics.

[TONEPUB]

I am going to take the money from the sale of my SACD player and buy an Open Reel tape deck and some Master Tape copies, Why?
BECAUSE I HEARD IT, AND HOLY CRAP!     

Been there, done that, huge waste of time and money. 

For me having a decent system is about listening to music.  If you want to drop $500 a pop for twenty, mostly lousy titles, that's great, but your chance of being highly disappointed is major.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

I don't see having a music server/computer audio setup as being better, I just see it as a very convenient way to listen to music in a non critical environment. 

All these little boutique labels are great, but they don't offer any music I'm the least bit interested in.

To each their own, but I can tell you now, you're going to be incredibly crabby the one time that your RTR deck burps (and it only happens once in a blue moon) and stretches your $500 tape project tape.

It all falls back to the big audiophile thing, where you start choosing albums solely on sonic merit rather than whether you like the music all that much.  Again, if that's your thing, no big deal, but I found that path relatively uninteresting and almost stopped listening to music.

I truly hope that doesn't happen to you.