[avahifi]

Here is a very interesting link I recommend that you all read.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Yah yah yah, I know its all "science" nasty old science, thus does not apply to you.

Enjoy,

Frank Van Alstine

[Rclark]

  

Bombshell!!

Pats Erc-2... Pats wallet...

My cd collection is looking mighty fine right about now. Thanks for posting that! Never would have believed that due to the many guru's here preaching otherwise.

[Art_Chicago]

thanks, Frank, it is pretty cool.
Just curious who the author is?

[thunderbrick]

Monty?  As in "Full Monty?"  Or "Monty Python?" 

[SlushPuppy]

Monty?  As in "Full Monty?"  Or "Monty Python?" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery

[Crimson]

From the article:

"It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate."

Funny stuff. 

[newzooreview]

Here is a very interesting link I recommend that you all read.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Yah yah yah, I know its all "science" nasty old science, thus does not apply to you.

Enjoy,

Frank Van Alstine

Not much science in it, unfortunately. The author does lay out a testable hypothesis about 16/44.1 covering the audible range within Nyquist limit. However, the only test of the hypothesis, that he cites uncritically, is a very weak and obviously flawed paper.

There's a discussion on another thread here about how the hypothesis might be tested (unless it's derailed already): http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=104300.msg1061943;topicseen#new

An alternate hypothesis (among many) is that the theoretical capacity of a 16/44.1 (Redbook) file to fully carry the relevant musical information is thwarted by inherent limitations of the playback chain, and higher resolution files allow for degradations in reproduction to have less of an audible impact. You could add a version of that which says that the inaudible parts of the spectrum can influence the audible parts, and when they're stripped out by 16/44.1 digitizing there is a discernible loss of perceive sound quality. The original, these variations, and others can and should be tested (but it's not an easy proposition to do so).

Real science lies not in jumping to conclusions but carefully and repeatedly evaluating our ideas. We're a long way from that in this (and many) aspects of audio reproduction.

[rbbert]

I don't think anyone knows how a perfectly recorded and played back 16/44.1 PCM recording would sound, because no existing A>D or D>A convertors are "perfect".  If anti-aliasing filters could be made without ringing, phase anomalies, etc., 16/44.1 would most likely sound different (better, most likely) than it does currently.

[Berto]

I have compared same two tracks in redbook vs hi rez and def heard alot more in the hi-rez recording. I did'nt want too since at the time I was selling my hi rez dac for a redbook only dac.

[kip_]

Frank, if you think high bit rate is worthless, why do you offer not one but two DACs that can decode it? Why aren't you selling an Insight+ DAC with a better output stage and maybe USB?

[JerryM]

Hmm; interesting read. Pure crap, but interesting nonetheless.

I believe there is also science that shows power cords, cables, amplifier type and tube selection cannot effect the sound quality of music reproduction, either.

I've been under the impression that AVA had moved past the scientific backstop and just started listening to music. Do you honestly believe this article, Frank?

[Rclark]

•popcorn•

[Art_Chicago]

At least we agree on something!   

 why any of you do not just discuss the topic? I would be interested to read other point of view instead of silly "I do not wanna buy your equipment"

[Brett Buck]

I never wanted a piece of AVA gear before....and I want one even less now.

   Is that the sound of someone's ox being gored?

     Brett

[TONEPUB]

This reminds me of the people I run into on occasion that are proud of the fact that they don't use a computer or the internet.

I like the part about stuff being recorded at 24/192 sounding WORSE than 16/44.1

First time I've heard that one.

[Austin08]

I like the part about stuff being recorded at 24/192 sounding WORSE than 16/44.1

First time I've heard that one.
[/quote]

+1

[Rclark]

Damn, I was all excited.

[doug s.]

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.

[Tone Depth]

The reason Frank gave for designing the Vision and FV series of Wolfson-based DACs, is that the Phillips chips the previous Insight and Ultra series and predecessor DACs were based on, was obsolete and being discontinued. He also stated listening and testing results of better performance for the Wolfson 8742-based DACs. It seems pretty straight-forward to design DACs based on one of the highest performance chips available at the time.

Frank, if you think high bit rate is worthless, why do you offer not one but two DACs that can decode it? Why aren't you selling an Insight+ DAC with a better output stage and maybe USB?

[Rclark]

I don't see any refutations here that are as strong as the article itself. I'm holding out that it may be true. Some of you are the $1000 cable lot, so grains of salt all around. Anyway, next dac, I'll try out a track or two from my laptop.