[MarkgM]

... 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.  Very interesting....

I have to chime in.  When I first found tripath sound in a little amp I got for $42 a couple years back, it immediately occurred to me that redbook had been rendered "palpable".  It seemed that there was enough information to make every little bit report itself and be digested.

[ted_b]

  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....

Dale is a very smart man.  If he has a new idea there I'm all ears.  I'm gonna have to call him.  Thx

[Geardaddy]

Ted, Dale is a smart man and has a crazy new technology that is not really conditioning in the traditional sense but more of a decoupling of your system from the house power.  I had a prototype cord for a while (I am receiving my unit in early April) that I sent to Joe Tucker in your neck of the woods.  A bunch of philes in your area have now heard it including the gentleman with the MM3s.  Give Joe a call (or I can TM you his #).  Joe now owns a production unit and is getting more when he can. 

Speaking of smart men, how is Bob doing?  I had a few email exchanges with him last year but nothing since.  There was a pair of Minis I was coveting on AG for a second system.  

[Geardaddy]

Bruce, thanks for the link with the different resolution files.  Very interesting.  The natural resonance of the cymbal strikes along with a sense of the rooms space is most definitely truncated in the lower resolution files. 

I noticed a similar transition in going from a highly regarded CDP to a more modern digital front end with very low jitter specs.  You could hear more of the room and reverberation of notes, etc. 

[Geardaddy]

Frank, can you post that PDF for us?  I would be interested to see it.

BTW, my wife and I used to live in MN and we came by your house in 2005 to hear your Salk speakers.  She brought chocolate chip cookies, and we listened to your basement system and watched your cats sharpen their claws on your acoustic fabric walls.   

[Robin Hood]

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.

Why should I care even if we agree to liken vinyl to 12-bits?  I have a Korg MR-2000S capable of recording at all PCM rates from 16/44.1 to 24/192 and DSD64 and DSD128.  Without a doubt the highest and superior recording using the Korg is at the 1-bit rate, DSD128.  True this is at a digital sampling rate of 5.6448 MHz versus the highest PCM sampling rate for the Korg of 192 KHz, but isn't it also true that analog has no sampling rate or should we say that the sampling rate for analog approaches infinity?

[Mike Nomad]

~

[ted_b]

Why should I care even if we agree to liken vinyl to 12-bits?  I have a Korg MR-2000S capable of recording at all PCM rates from 16/44.1 to 24/192 and DSD64 and DSD128.  Without a doubt the highest and superior recording using the Korg is at the 1-bit rate, DSD128.  True this is at a digital sampling rate of 5.6448 MHz versus the highest PCM sampling rate for the Korg of 192 KHz, but isn't it also true that analog has no sampling rate or should we say that the sampling rate for analog approaches infinity?

Why should you care, because you have a DSD recorder?  I don't get your point.  Great that you have a DSD recorder!  But my point was that vinyl's "equivalent" (maybe better said "analogous") bit depth is more like 12 bits, according to a digital expert.  And don't mix apples with oranges; 5.6Mhz vs 192k is not the right comparison, cuz one number is 1 bit math, and the other is 24 bit.  They are closer (DSD128 is more like 24/352) than you think.

[werd]

Why should you care, because you have a DSD recorder?  I don't get your point.  Great that you have a DSD recorder!  But my point was that vinyl's "equivalent" (maybe better said "analogous") bit depth is more like 12 bits, according to a digital expert.  And don't mix apples with oranges; 5.6Mhz vs 192k is not the right comparison, cuz one number is 1 bit math, and the other is 24 bit.  They are closer (DSD128 is more like 24/352) than you think.

Thats a poor point  , the whole accomplishment of hi rez is to approach an anologue out sine wave. Atm the only source capable of doing that is a TT or tape. I would say 24 bits outputs are close but 12 bits is  no where near  analogue. Its still resembles a "quasi-digital output".

[ted_b]

Did you read Mark Waldrep's comments on this??  His 12 bits has to do with dynamic range equivalents.  I shouldn't have even posted, sorry!

[werd]

Did you read Mark Waldrep's comments on this??  His 12 bits has to do with dynamic range equivalents.  I shouldn't have even posted, sorry!

All i am saying is - at the end of the day whatever or however we get there with hirez the signal is going to look more analogue off the dac chip.  Everything else is just specs.

[werd]

I am really enjoying these hirez recording we are getting. But to me i am seeing a lot of comparisons being made to analogue by these digital gurus. The thing is give me a fully analogue signal first and then start comparing. Until then they are two different mediums. The dynamic range of vinyl is claimed be in the order of 12 bits. Ok, well what that tells me is you need at least 24 bits of digital playback to have 12 bits of measurable analogue output...lol.

Anyways the best playback is still vinyl and they can try and spec to the digital flavor all they want. Until i get a full analogue output then why bother.

We reference digital to vinyl imo and not vinyl to digital.

[ted_b]

Ok, it is my fault for starting the 12 bits discussion, in reaction to MarkgM's vinyl comments.  I vowed to the AC folks not to have a vinyl vs digital debate in this Circle, so mea culpa!  And yes, Werd, you are right....we are striving to get to the analog experience and then some (without the ticks, pops, fluid, cleaning and 20 minute interruptions to flip the damn thing). 

Now...Let's PLEASE get back to the OP topic, which is...is hirez and it's inflated purchase price living up to the hype vs its redbook counterpart?  And one area that is clearly part of this discussion is whether "hirez" as a sub-industry has temporarily lost any of its potential due to the plethora of faux upsampled 16/44 that is being touted as hirez.  I have to answer a resounding "yes" to the second part.  Whether it's the labels fault, the distributor/download sites fault, or both....we are becoming more and more skeptical as we become more and more educated.   And then finally, to geardaddy's other initial question....if true hirez is more sonically pleasing, is it entirely due to technology, or are we playing in a gene pool that has no warts to begin with....that hirez mastering is done better, uses better source material, and has tighter qc due to the market?  I'd say it's a little of all the above, as each of us have unique redbook examples (MA recordings, Mapleshade, etc) that sonically redefine what is possible at 16/44. 

But at the end of the day, when I take a former redbook sonic champion, like Todd Garfinkle's MA Recordings Sera Una Noche and have Todd send me the 24/176 "master" of it...there is no comparison.  The prettiest girl in the yearbook just got much prettier once you meet her up close.    ............Off my stupid soapbox.

[woodsyi]

This is the way I understand this digital/analog thing.  You have to keep the dynamics consistent.  I mean the micro dynamics should not be mixed with macro dynamics.  When Ted talks about 12bit equivalent of analog, he is talking about the macro frequency range of analog which is less then that of even the Redbook format.  From what I understand this comes from the signal to noise ratio in the mathematical domain which is not all realized in practical application, but the potential is there. CD can play wider frequency band than vinyl.

When Werd is talking about sine wave, it's the micro dynamics.  From what I understand, the fundamental quantization error in the sampling stage can never be erased.  The increased bit depth and higher sampling rate greatly increases the smoothness of the re-transformed wave to be like the original analog wave.  From what I have heard when I compare 24/96 and 16/44 of the same original recording, I would say the "higher rez" indeed improves on CD.  The gain in tonal richness I heard by going to 24/96 from 16/44 give me hope that deeper bit depth and higher sampling rate will give even higher resolution that leads to richer sound. 

[werd]

I hope it didn't look like i was pointing at you Ted. You are definitely a digital guru but not the ones i was talking about...... hehe

Its absolutely the way to go with hirez. These dacs we are seeing now need  dynamic ranges and high bit rates to operate properly imo. The transients and dynamic advantages that we get from hirez help mask all the little nasties and undesirables that these high rez dacs trick your ear into not hearing. I compare to the mp3 masking. Its the same thing with 24 bit. The whole digital scene is just a giant bandaid fix approach to playback..... but without the ticks or pops and cleaning fluid.... 

I love it though 

[ted_b]

Werd,
No problem.    I'm in a bad mood today, that's all.   Audiogon trolls are p-ing me off. 

[bdiament]

With full respect and not getting into any A vs. D debate,
why the 12-bit analogy is, in my view, silly:

I said earlier I feel it mistaken to equate bits with dynamic range or signal to noise ratio.  While both are true, it is resolution that is the key.

Let's say we've got a musical performance that contains wide dynamics and within that performance, there is a long section that is played quietly, lets say 25 dB below the loudest sections of the performance.

I can record that performance using analog tape, I can record it digitally at 24-bits and I can record it digitally at 16-bits.  Let's say I did all three.

During these quiet parts, (assuming the loudest parts were recorded to peak only a fraction of a decibel below 0 dBFS), the 24-bit digital recording would effectively be an approximately 19-bit recording (with ~6.02 dB per bit, a level of -25 would cost us just over 4 bits).  The 16-bit recording would effectively be using 11-bits.

During those quieter sections, the analog tape would most likely exhibit more audible hiss but the music would still be there, fully intact.  The 24-bit recording still has 19-bits to give us a pretty good representation of the quiet parts.  The 16-bit recording would sound coarse, to put it mildly.  Cellos would sound more like kazoos (hints of which have already begun even when all 16 bits are used ).

So, before we go attributing a bit value to analog, I think we should look at all the things word length represents and not just one or two (potential dynamic range or signal to noise ratio).  As soon as we look at it as resolution, the attribution of a word length equivalent to analog no longer holds up.

Okay, that's off my chest.  Thanks for listening.
Back to the subject at hand: As long as the hardware and software involved can truly do 24-bits cleanly, and we've got clocking that is up to the task (no small thing to ask, judging from a lot of the software and hardware out there) and analog stages that can perform at wide bandwidth, we have true high res and for the first time in my experience, the real sound of the input signal.

Of course, all, just my perspective.

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

[MarkgM]

Somewhere back I had said I would settle for 24/96.  But that is an old statement of compromise I still have had lying around.  Barry, 24/192 sounds like something worth "pitching a tent on", which you have re-affirmed.  I've heard it sound better than slower before on a Sony SACD player - "life like", but that was one audition a few years ago. 

192 KHz does seem to be starting out a little slow.  I wish I knew more about how things were going in the studio, re: the quality of the masterings, in the 80s, 90s and 00s.  Have the quality of masterings suffered due to the likes of what we've been talking about in this thread?  Has there been a combination of digital resolution and equipment quality on the studio side that has caused losses? 

Putting things into perspective also comes with getting my latest upgrade all in order and sounding nice.  As usual, the redbook comes out the most wanting.  I'm back to reality.  In the history of audio, I think we may be in for 20 years of CD being the old, phased-out stuff (like vinyl has been through), only this one isn't going to have an ongoing crowd of enthusiasts.  But what we need is the replacement that is also a part of that, with the higher rez. How much of a project is getting the old recordings re-mastered (for the big recording companies, like Sony/EMI)?

Cheers,
Mark

[bdiament]

Hi Mark,

Somewhere back I had said I would settle for 24/96.  But that is an old statement of compromise I still have had lying around.  Barry, 24/192 sounds like something worth "pitching a tent on", which you have re-affirmed.  I've heard it sound better than slower before on a Sony SACD player - "life like", but that was one audition a few years ago. 

192 KHz does seem to be starting out a little slow.  I wish I knew more about how things were going in the studio, re: the quality of the masterings, in the 80s, 90s and 00s.  Have the quality of masterings suffered due to the likes of what we've been talking about in this thread?  Has there been a combination of digital resolution and equipment quality on the studio side that has caused losses? 

Putting things into perspective also comes with getting my latest upgrade all in order and sounding nice.  As usual, the redbook comes out the most wanting.  I'm back to reality.  In the history of audio, I think we may be in for 20 years of CD being the old, phased-out stuff (like vinyl has been through), only this one isn't going to have an ongoing crowd of enthusiasts.  But what we need is the replacement that is also a part of that, with the higher rez. How much of a project is getting the old recordings re-mastered (for the big recording companies, like Sony/EMI)?

Cheers,
Mark

I would agree that 24/192 is slow on the starting.  One of the things I attribute this to is the fact that a lot of the gear I've tried that is spec'd for 24/192 is not really up to the task.

The demands on clocking accuracy go up at the 4x rates (i.e. 176.4 and 192k) as do the demands on analog stage performance at wide bandwidth.  It would seem it is easier to purchase a "192" chip and drop it into a design than it is to actually create a design that does such a chip justice.  I've heard all to many converters (including some pro units) where performance suffers at the 4x rates, rather than improving.

At home, we see computer soundcards and other devices spec'd for 192k that also are not showing what can be achieved, outside of higher numbers on a spec sheet.  (Of course, the matter isn't helped when certain "audiophile" sources are selling upsampled Redbook as "high res" files.)

On top of all this, you raise a good point with regard to mastering (not to mention recording and mixing).  I've always said a superior recording is identifiable as such, regardless of the format in which it is encoded and regardless of the system on which it is played.  I hear more musical/sonic truth in a Keith Johnson recording turned into an eMPty3 and played in the car than I have heard on many master tapes from other sources.   

There is another thread in a different circle about monitors (pro vs. consumer).  I have long held that monitoring is the most important aspect of any studio.  If you can't hear what you're doing, nothing else matters.

This falls into a larger phenomenon I've observed over the years: engineers are not taught to answer (what I call) "the questions".  Generally, they "learn" from others to whom the questions have never even occurred.  This is equally true of the so-called engineering "schools" I've seen.

An example of a key unasked question:

"Are these speakers and the way they're set up capable of telling me what the recording itself sounds like?"  The usual procedure is to equip the studio with speakers that are "known" to be "professional" monitors or with speakers that some "name" engineer used on a big album.  I know of very few studios that have monitoring I would consider more honest than a typical car system (though most will play very loudly).

Another unasked questions:

"What did I do wrong in a previous step in the process that I hope to remedy by turning this knob?"  I've seen all too many engineers automatically apply certain EQ for certain instruments.  I've seen all too many mastering engineers have their EQ and compression set up before the first note comes out of the monitors.(!)

"Why am I choosing this microphone and why am I placing it in this particular spot?"  Unfortunately, these decisions are generally made because that is what has been learned by watching what others (who never asked the question and also "learned" by watching others, who never asked the question) do.

I find it interesting that the exceptions that did seem to ask themselves the questions were turning out work half a century ago, with all the limitations of their gear, that still sounds outstanding today and still should be required listening in any audio engineering course.  (Bob Fine's work comes immediately to mind.)

So, in the same way things like vibration isolation can provide wonderful benefits but only when basic system set up has been properly addressed, high resolution like 24/192 can take us to the next step in audio but at its best, it can only provide a truer view of the recording itself.  If the sonics have been massacred by the time the signals are leaving the mics, only to be further decimated by common engineering practices, 24/192 will can only us a superbly honest capture of a bad recording.

That said, there is another side to this.  Having a really good system at home also only provides us with a more accurate view of all the recordings in our libraries.  Like viewing through a cleaner window, it is easier to perceive what is wrong but it is also easier to perceive what is right.  To my ears, even typical studio recordings reveal more of the performance when played on better systems.  In the same way, I find high res brings me more of the recorded performance, regardless of the quality of that recording.  Now, if only more recordings were done after "the questions" had been properly asked and the necessary work done to find the proper answers to those questions.  Then, we'd have a new golden age for audio.

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

[ted_b]

Barry et al,
I now this is gonna sound paranoid, but could another reason 24/192+ be slow on the uptake is because it is ultimately selling the keys to the kingdom, the master tapes?  I mean, with a Metric Halo LIO-8/ULN-8 sitting in my home, listening to your Equinox 24/192 recording...I have your master tapes directly!!  You can't ever sell this recording again in another format, and I now have a digital copy of exactly what you have that might accidentally (or more likely for illegal profit) get out onto the 'Net.  Just sayin....