[James Tanner]

Hi All,

At the CES Show rescently we were able to play back a number of different types of files. Some standard CD 44.1 quality, some Itunes, some Chesky hi-res, some Music Giants hi-res etc.

What was interesting is that we found the quality of the original recording became the deciding factor as to what sounded good and what sounded Ok or even bad.  In other words the hi-res material did not always far that well.

Any other opinions or observations out there on the subject?

james

[ted_b]

I agree that it still becomes a "garbage in, garbage out" argument.  It is especially true if the hi-rez files were not originally recorded in hi-rez, but upsampled or upconverted.   That being said, the most incredible demos at CES were original 24/192 recordings (Michael Schnee's at TAD room).  Absolutely beautiful recordings, with realistic harmonics that I've never heard other than live.

The double-edged sword that is 24/192 (or 24/176) is that those bandwidths require especially stable and quiet signal paths/power supplies/reclocking mechanisms, etc.  Otherwise noise is introduced due to the stresses.  From the designer of a leading DAC:
"to extract all of the information in high resolution signals such as 24-bit 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz recordings, the signal source also needs to have extremely low jitter. That is because input signal jitter components form "side-bands" that inject energy into the signal grounds of the DAC. Even though (our DAC) has extremely high input signal isolation the amount of information in a 24-bit 192kHz signal requires microvolt analog accuracy to reproduce and the less jitter "noise" the input signal carries the better.

[James Tanner]

I agree that it still becomes a "garbage in, garbage out" argument.  It is especially true if the hi-rez files were not originally recorded in hi-rez, but upsampled or upconverted.   That being said, the most incredible demos at CES were original 24/192 recordings (Michael Schnee's at TAD room).  Absolutely beautiful recordings, with realistic harmonics that I've never heard other than live.

The double-edged sword that is 24/192 (or 24/176) is that those bandwidths require especially stable and quiet signal paths/power supplies/reclocking mechanisms, etc.  Otherwise noise is introduced due to the stresses.  From the designer of a leading DAC:
"to extract all of the information in high resolution signals such as 24-bit 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz recordings, the signal source also needs to have extremely low jitter. That is because input signal jitter components form "side-bands" that inject energy into the signal grounds of the DAC. Even though (our DAC) has extremely high input signal isolation the amount of information in a 24-bit 192kHz signal requires microvolt analog accuracy to reproduce and the less jitter "noise" the input signal carries the better.

Hi Ted,

I agree - As I've said many times when we were developing the CD Player and the External DAC the analog stages, the power supply integrity and the jitter issues all contribute to a successful design. What was also interesting is the difference in quality heard when you played these same files from a Laptop as opposed to a Music Server.

james
 

[James Tanner]

Another issue that came up was David Chesky was in our room to provide us with some hi-res material and was stating that Chesky may not offer any hi-res downloads above 96/24 online because of the excessive file sizes needed for 176 or 192.

james

[ted_b]

James,
Please tell us about the laptop vs music server thing.  What "parts" or characteristics were harmed the most (or bettered, conversely, when going to the server).

[ted_b]

Another issue that came up was David Chesky was in our room to provide us with some hi-res material and was stating that Chesky may not offer any hi-res downloads above 96/24 online because of the excessive file sizes needed for 176 or 192.

james

Yeah, Hrx (Reference Recordings) mentions that on their website as the reason for shipping them on DVD-R's as opposed to a download service.  We need the next level of download bandwidth (Sweden has like 100x our bandwidth).

[James Tanner]

James,
Please tell us about the laptop vs music server thing.  What "parts" or characteristics were harmed the most (or bettered, conversely, when going to the server).

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

[ted_b]

James,
Please tell us about the laptop vs music server thing.  What "parts" or characteristics were harmed the most (or bettered, conversely, when going to the server).

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

What was the server?  Did it use the Lynx AES16 card that all are talking about?  Was the interface to the BDA-1 the same in both the laptop and server (i.e SPDIF, etc.)?  thx
Ted

[James Tanner]

James,
Please tell us about the laptop vs music server thing.  What "parts" or characteristics were harmed the most (or bettered, conversely, when going to the server).

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

What was the server?  Did it use the Lynx AES16 card that all are talking about?  Was the interface to the BDA-1 the same in both the laptop and server (i.e SPDIF, etc.)?  thx
Ted

Hi Ted,

Yes it was a modified Music Vault Server with a quality sound card vs a MAC laptop. Both through the BDA-1 optical for 96/24 and through the SPDIF on the Music Vault for the 96/176/192.

We also have a BCD-1 hooked up so we could compare CD's.



james

[mr_bill]

James,

On comparable material, did the CD through the BCD1 sound better than the music server?

Thanks.

[Watson]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

[James Tanner]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

NO I am saying the BDA-1 is capable of showing exacly what is going on.  It is very easy to tell what the source is doing - which in my opinion speaks volumes for the BDA-1.

james

[James Tanner]

James,

On comparable material, did the CD through the BCD1 sound better than the music server?

Thanks.

Hi Bill,

Good question - actually I thought the music server sounded very good through the DAC. I did not try the CD Player through the DAC.  We were just using the Music Server so we could play hi-res files.

I have the server on the way back to me so I will experiment when I get it home.  My laptop at home sounds fine with the BDA1 so it is a bit of a mystery.

james

[Jon L]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

NO I am saying the BDA-1 is capable of showing exacly what is going on.  It is very easy to tell what the source is doing - which in my opinion speaks volumes for the BDA-1.

james

So it was Mac's built-in mini-toslink vs. Lynx card's spdif output?  I use Lynx for spdif to outboard DAC myself with modded digital cabling and can attest to its goodness. 

[James Tanner]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

NO I am saying the BDA-1 is capable of showing exacly what is going on.  It is very easy to tell what the source is doing - which in my opinion speaks volumes for the BDA-1.

james
 

So it was Mac's built-in mini-toslink vs. Lynx card's spdif output?  I use Lynx for spdif to outboard DAC myself with modded digital cabling and can attest to its goodness. 

Hi Jon,

Correct- have you listened to any of the hi-res files with your setup.

james

[Jon L]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

NO I am saying the BDA-1 is capable of showing exacly what is going on.  It is very easy to tell what the source is doing - which in my opinion speaks volumes for the BDA-1.

james
 

So it was Mac's built-in mini-toslink vs. Lynx card's spdif output?  I use Lynx for spdif to outboard DAC myself with modded digital cabling and can attest to its goodness. 

Hi Jon,

Correct- have you listened to any of the hi-res files with your setup.

james

Yes, I have 24/96 files from HDTracks and some others and send them to my 24/96-capable DAC with often quite extraordinary sound quality, really. 

However, even among 24/96 albums, there is HUGE variability in sound quality, likely due to recording/mastering differences that I agree with you that a clean, well-done 44.1 kHz file *can* sound better than not-well-done 96 kHz files. 

[Sasha]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

Why disappointing?
It is actually good.
I think you would not want gear that would mask everything with its own color, not being able to show the difference between such two quite different sources?

[Watson]

Why disappointing?
It is actually good.
I think you would not want gear that would mask everything with its own color, not being able to show the difference between such two quite different sources?

The only difference between bit-perfect digital sources is jitter. And I thought the BDA-1 was supposed to be fairly good at reclocking to eliminate jitter. Sounds like its jitter-filtering is only moderately effective.

[James Tanner]

Why disappointing?
It is actually good.
I think you would not want gear that would mask everything with its own color, not being able to show the difference between such two quite different sources?

The only difference between bit-perfect digital sources is jitter. And I thought the BDA-1 was supposed to be fairly good at reclocking to eliminate jitter. Sounds like its jitter-filtering is only moderately effective.

Obviously I am not going to win this discussion so lets just move along.

james

[James Tanner]

The Laptop sounded very hard and grainy - almost like the early CD days.

james

So you're saying using the BDA-1 with a laptop as a source yields poor sound quality? That's kind of disappointing.

NO I am saying the BDA-1 is capable of showing exacly what is going on.  It is very easy to tell what the source is doing - which in my opinion speaks volumes for the BDA-1.

james
 

So it was Mac's built-in mini-toslink vs. Lynx card's spdif output?  I use Lynx for spdif to outboard DAC myself with modded digital cabling and can attest to its goodness. 

Hi Jon,

Correct- have you listened to any of the hi-res files with your setup.

james

Yes, I have 24/96 files from HDTracks and some others and send them to my 24/96-capable DAC with often quite extraordinary sound quality, really. 

However, even among 24/96 albums, there is HUGE variability in sound quality, likely due to recording/mastering differences that I agree with you that a clean, well-done 44.1 kHz file *can* sound better than not-well-done 96 kHz files. 

Hi Jon,

Yes I guess thats the point - I was expecting the hi-res files from any source to out perform the 44.1 files but that was not the case. I am looking forward to playing with the Music Server when it gets back from Vegas.

james