[Speedskater]

Probably the best place to discuss different technical viewpoints would be:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99681&st=0

It's a thread started by Monty and that forum expects accuracy.

[Napalm]

That forum is largely about MP3 compression (or at least that's how it started years ago), why would you think accuracy is a higher priority there than here?

[Napalm]

Just to re-post an interesting link :

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

I suggest exploring the "Casablanca" example there. Spectral vs. phase distortion.

After seeing (actually hearing) this example you'll probably agree with me that any further discussion concentrating on amplitude while ignoring phase should go to the Intergalactic Waste Bin.

[Emsquare]

This video is a bit technical, but very useful.

https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Frank Van Alstine

I like it quite a bit ... (somewhat punny?)

I find that I can be a victim of the noise that crops up in the audiophile community and cannot always tell the difference between what's important and the minutia. I hate wasting time and money on half baked concepts that are next to meaningless. Presentations like this are invaluable to people like myself who are not well educated in the concepts discussed. Thank you.

[Speedskater]

That forum is largely about MP3 compression (or at least that's how it started years ago), why would you think accuracy is a higher priority there than here?

1] mp3 is ancient history
b] Every technical statement has to be supportable 

[Napalm]

b] Every technical statement has to be supportable

Minute 3:45: "we begin by converting an analog signal to digital and then right back to analog again with no other steps"

False, there's a low pass analog filter between the DAC integrated circuit outputs and the outputs of the blue box.

What he's broadly doing is

1) analog to digital conversion
2) digital to analog conversion
3) analog low pass filtering

Step 3) is the reason he ain't seeing steps in the output signal.

[Napalm]

------------

[Brett Buck]

Minute 3:45: "we begin by converting an analog signal to digital and then right back to analog again with no other steps"

False, there's a low pass analog filter between the DAC integrated circuit outputs and the outputs of the blue box.

What he's broadly doing is

1) analog to digital conversion
2) digital to analog conversion
3) analog low pass filtering

Step 3) is the reason he ain't seeing steps in the output signal.

   Correct, and part of the point is that even his obsolete converter is not introducing significant error and it certainly is not getting "chunky" on high frequencies - the primary reason that people arguing for high sample rates claim as the goal. Even a relatively rudimentary filter is capable of eliminating the sampling noise without significantly impacting the output distortion. It's almost as if someone had thought this through beforehand in 1980!

     This was all a point of all the initial discussion on this topic when CD were first induced. The problem with most of the early designs had nothing to do with the sample rate and resolution, or even in the output filter - it was the poor characteristics of the output amplifier. As discussed at length in Audio Basics. There are still improvements to be made there. Keying in on "chunky" bits and "inadequate" sample rates is a red herring.

    Brett

[Napalm]

   Correct, and part of the point is that even his obsolete converter is not introducing significant error and it certainly is not getting "chunky" on high frequencies - the primary reason that people arguing for high sample rates claim as the goal. Even a relatively rudimentary filter is capable of eliminating the sampling noise without significantly impacting the output distortion.
    Brett

Well yes if we think "amplitude" but having a filter tuned at 20kHz will introduce phase shifts around that frequency, including in the area widely accepted as being "audible spectrum".

From this POV I feel more comfortable with the idea of having 96kHz sampling rate and the filter tuned around 48kHz.

[JerryM]

Monty is a fascinating guy. Why does he continue to put forward this argument? I mean, seriously?

HiRez audio sounds better than Redbook in nearly every instance. Who cares if the original 16/44 format can, in fact, hold all of the necessary information to equal the sound of HiRez? It doesn't, it hasn't, and it isn't likely to begin to, sound as good as HiRez.

YMMV, JMHO, etc.,

Jerry

[tipatina]

Interesting video and article. I won't be tossing my CD collection that took 20+ years to build. My relatively modest (by audiophile standards) Cambridge 840CD sounds better than ever in my system now that I have incorporated the T8+. That being said I'm trying to learn more about the high res option because of so many reports of better sound quality. I hope to do an A/B in my system one day.

[Davey]

HiRez audio sounds better than Redbook in nearly every instance. Who cares if the original 16/44 format can, in fact, hold all of the necessary information to equal the sound of HiRez? It doesn't, it hasn't, and it isn't likely to begin to, sound as good as HiRez.

Jerry

Your statement reads like a non-sequitur.

If the 16/44 can, in fact, hold all the information that a HiRez format can, then by definition any audible difference must be the result of something besides the sampling format.  No?

Cheers,

Dave.

[JerryM]

Your statement reads like a non-sequitur.

If the 16/44 can, in fact, hold all the information that a HiRez format can, then by definition any audible difference must be the result of something besides the sampling format.  No?

Cheers,

Dave.

   Let me try again.

Who cares what Monty says. HiRez sounds better.

 

[Speedskater]

"If the 16/44 can, in fact, hold all the information that a HiRez format can, then by definition any audible difference must be the result of something besides the sampling format. "

Let's make that:

If the 16/44 can, in fact, hold all the audible information, then by definition any audible difference must be the result of something besides the sampling format.

So Yes the differences are the result of something besides the sampling format.

[Speedskater]

I should point out that there are many reasonable reasons for recording in HiRez formats. But after all the editing and processing is done, down-sampling to 16/44 will retain all the audible information.

[Napalm]

But after all the editing and processing is done, down-sampling to 16/44 will retain all the audible information.

Can you then explain results like these:

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=15398

[Speedskater]

Not peer reviewed, just nonsense!

[Speedskater]

Better answer and discussion:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264&hl=Pras+Guastavino

[Napalm]

Not peer reviewed, just nonsense!

Prove them wrong. Scientific glory will be yours.

[Napalm]

Better answer and discussion:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264&hl=Pras+Guastavino

Now that's better. I tend to agree with them that with some other musical genres like heavy metal you can usually downsample all the way to 2 bits / 3 kHz and it still won't make any difference.

What kind of music do you use to listen?