[woodsyi]

I try to stay current with both formats because of the titles available in both formats.  When you dig an esoteric genre like Opera, some of the finest recordings will never be remastered to digital -- no money it it.  So I have to have analog to listen to my favorite singers.  On the other hand most new music (until the recent vinyl renaissance) have been issued only in digital format.  So I keep that up too.  High Rez sounds good to me --better then Redbook.  Unlike you, I am grateful for all the "advances" in digital formats.  I say keep making it better coz I will like it better. I say more bits mean the potential to record and playback music better.

[Wayner]

Jtw......But you miss the point, completely. The resolution will keep on increasing until digital has turned into an analog wave, which is what we already have. It's just in a different format. Therefore, the goal of digital is to become "analog", because that is where it came from!

Wayner

[Quiet Earth]

I can't speak directly for "hi-rez" only gear, but I would say that if you can't stand digital in general, then you have not discovered a DAC that speaks to you. Keep looking because it is out there. And don't dismiss redbook CD either because there is quite a bit of digital music available that you will never get to hear on vinyl. And it can sound damn good too.

Don't give up.

Also (and FWIW), I think that all formats have a certain "house sound" or character to them. That's part of the whole experience of music playback, isn't it?. I can't really say that I prefer one format over the other. I'm just glad to have both. What I really want is reel to reel, but I missed the boat on that format. I could never afford it when I had the chance.

Ahhhh, champagne problems. Life is good, eh?

[wgscott]

Jtw......But you miss the point, completely. The resolution will keep on increasing until digital has turned into an analog wave, which is what we already have. It's just in a different format. Therefore, the goal of digital is to become "analog", because that is where it came from!

Wayner

That's only because audiophools who can't grasp the Nyquist theorem genuinely believe they are getting more information in 192 kHz sampled music than 96 kHz sampled music, or else they have had their dog's ears implanted in their heads, allowing them to hear above the usual adult threshold of 16kHz. 

Numbers sell.

Very generously, the highest-frequency Fourier component wave you can hear is 20kHz, so if you sample at >40kHz, you have completely defined that component wave, just like you would have in an analogue sampling method.  That sine wave isn't going to get any more like a sine wave.  There are arguments for why you might need sample at higher frequencies to avoid folding artifacts, but the idea that 96kHz doesn't offer a massive overkill of headroom is silly.

[woodsyi]

Jtw......But you miss the point, completely. The resolution will keep on increasing until digital has turned into an analog wave, which is what we already have. It's just in a different format. Therefore, the goal of digital is to become "analog", because that is where it came from!

Wayner

Digital may be mimicking analog but you forget that needles and grooves present physical limitations of their own.  Staying in the analog domain isn't panacea.  Analog (vinyl) is a lossy format.  Given higher resolution, digital may overcome old analog technology (and it's limitations).   Look at film vs digital photo and tape vs. digital video.

Caveat:  Music recorded, processed and produced in complete high res digital to me sounds "better" than remastered analog originals. YMMV.

[wgscott]

Jtw......But you miss the point, completely. The resolution will keep on increasing until digital has turned into an analog wave, which is what we already have. It's just in a different format. Therefore, the goal of digital is to become "analog", because that is where it came from!

Wayner

In the audible range, the digital samples have already become analogue waves within the redbook sampling frequency limit. 

If I were to guess, the main deficiency sensitive people note with redbook is the limit that 16-bit imposes on dynamic range, vs. 24-bit.

[konut]

Well, konut, I'm certainly not going to pick apart everything that you say, word by word, but you want some proof about high-res never good enough, well there is already material that is avalible in limited selections, much higher in resolution. I believe I saw a 384/24.

They are simply filling in the space of an analog wave with more numbers. More numbers in the same amount of time means faster machine. That may mean that the 192/24 stuff will become obsolete.

Wayner

Do you mean the same way vinyl has become obsolete? After all, by your own standard, it only occupies .2% of the market now. And why did they get rid of 78s? So much more resolution! The fools! I say we go to 156rpm! Whos with me? 

[orthobiz]

I can't believe no one has quoted my impassioned response and picked it apart!

Paul

[neekomax]

I can't believe no one has quoted my impassioned response and picked it apart!

Paul

Unless I read it wrong, seemed pretty diplomatic to me. Like, "I love vinyl, but to each his own." Hard to argue with what you like.

Maybe you need to sharpen those elbows a bit to get the impassioned responses you're looking for?

[konut]

It's all about what is important to you as an individual.

Of course. Wayner doesn't seem to "get" that.

For me, when I am collecting vinyl, archiving it, cleaning it, buying it, what have you...I am an audio archeologist. Just picked up a Columbia 2-eye red label Moby Grape Wow from the late 60's and I am holding a piece of history. To know that the record was engineered by the original guy from the original master tape and is an original pressing is important to me.

Good for you. Hobbies are wonderful.

I don't care if I have to get up to change the record. It's good exercise. And I don't need to digitize it and pump it into every room in my house. Listening critically is a luxury, I do it from my favorite chair in my favorite room when I have time to savor the sounds.

You might want to rethink the excercise thing, unless your listening room is the size of a football field.

If you go to other websites, such as stevehoffman dot tv, you will see frequent threads on "what's the best CD of this or that album" all the time. They have remastered the hell out of certain music, brickwalled it, made it worse, from who knows which master tape in who knows what condition by who-knows-who. The music is too bright, has too much bass, blahblahblah. Many times the "answer" about which one is best is...the original vinyl!

 

Quite true. But many other times a remaster kicks the snot out of the original vinyl which, lets face it, has dynamic range, signal to noise,  and bass limitations that digital does not.

Now maybe one could argue that currently recorded music is done digitally so why not get the best resolution digital out of it...I still don't care. If the record is important to me and it's on vinyl I am likely to buy the vinyl copy anyway.

You are entitled to your PREFERENCE.

My answer to Wayner's question is "yes." The "but" comes in when you figure out who you as an individual listener are and what is important to you. The fun thing about this hobby is that it's so many different things to so many different people .
Paul

Sadly, Wayner feels the need to assert his preferences as superiority every so often. Makes one wonder why this is.

There! Feel better now Paul? 

[Pez]

My digital system sounds better than your analog system so suck it! Yes I'm talking to YOU the person reading this. 

[neekomax]

My digital system sounds better than your analog system so suck it! Yes I'm talking to YOU the person reading this. 

Unequivocal. Nice. 

[Kinger]

Not sure where I fall in this thread really, but I can say that I finally heard why folks rave about vinyl when I had the opportunity to visit a friend's place and hear some selections on his Rega RP3/Ortofon Blue cartridge. (Not saying this is super high end, but it's in my price range.)  Prior to this my vinyl exposure had been stuff in the 80's played out of some rinki dink all in one players.  Was impressed enough to seriously consider purchasing a table myself to complement what I've already got going on in the digital world.  Just need to save up more money and figure out if I want to deal with the rituals of vinyl including cleaning, setup and flipping........

[*Scotty*]

The vinyl medium is far from perfect and if those who enjoy the medium do not understand this an in depth history lesson is in order that focuses on the technological compromises and limitations of the medium. A record is NOT the master tape.
Vinyl does at least one advantage over digital,it has decreasing distortion as the signal level drops.
Digital has increasing distortion as the signal level drops. Signal level is bit dependent,0 dB has the maximum bit depth. In the case of the 16bit format,at -60db it has more than 3 percent THD. The 24 bit format at least has a recognizable sinewave at negative 90dB. The key is the number of bits, 24 bits sounds pretty good and I don't any real complaints about the 24/96 format.
 Would 32 bits sound better,possibly but it will require another leap forward in storage density.
I am hoping that Hi-Rez is something that will grow to have a wider number of titles available
I fear that we will very lucky if we are able to retain the 16/44 format and not loose it to the iTunes mp3 onslaught. If new music is mastered at 24/96 and then is only available from iTunes as a mp3 download, with no CD or vinyl release, then that artist is off the table as far as most audiophiles are concerned. This continuing trend is all that is necessary for us to loose 16/44 as a viable format.
Scotty
    Pez, I'll see your broke  x$$ 10 year old obsolete XA-777ES and raise you my $10 16/44 system. Progress Rules man.

[dlaloum]

I don't know if you people have ready this:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog.....p;blogId=1

Summary - double blind testing shows no difference between 16/44 and higher res formats....

the AES Link:

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2

And further details of the test:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm


Further - this follows on some tests that were done much much earlier in which the AES set up a set of wideband speakers (going up to and beyond 80kHz!) and went to a lot of bother to make sure they had the linear amplitude as well as phase required to make the test valid (something the above test did not do!).

Then they made recordings of live occurences in the street - trees in the breeze etc... and had people listen to them with various Lo-Pass filters in or out - testing for the point at which people no longer heard the difference.... Double Blind fashion - results were statistically analysed.

Interestingly in this analysis at least one person could detect the presence or absence of the 80kHz filter - and as the frequencies came down from there many could hear the lower filters.

There was however no analysis to the best of my knowledge of whether they were hearing the high frequency or its intermodulations which are within the 20-20kHz range.... (both of which would have resulted in the exact same results in the tests...)

So :
1) The first test is showing that for the majority of people 16/44 is indistinguishable from HiRez Audio. (mind you the women in the test had a better differentiation rate at 35% than the men at 50%.... the women had a statistically significant ability to tell the difference - the men didn't)
2) The 2nd test implies the ability to hear well beyond 20kHz - and therefore a requirement for HiRez audio.... but it doesn't differentiate between IMD and the recording.... (very tricky that!) - however it does make the point that many/most people (even audio pro's) cannot hear beyond 20kHz....

Interesting isn't it?!?

Getting back to vinyl, although it has theoretically wideband performance, you can mathematically calculate the distortion generated by tracking error, as well as the needle width.... to achieve acceptable performance (in distortion terms) at 15kHz requires a Micro Ridge type stylus (side/minor radius of less than 0.35um).
To do the same at 20kHz requires ?? - not sure ... But I don't think any needle can provide an accurate distortion free picture of what is happening beyond 20kHz. (yes I know about CD4 but that was FM encoded and therefore not as subject to normal distortion.... but more subject to phase)

Further - to protect the cutter heads, the high end was frequently EQ'd downwards.... Shure did some studies analysing the spectral profile of hundreds of recordings.... on average 15kHz is more than 15db down.... and as the frequency rises, the amount of information continues to drop.

So even if you can properly reproduce it.... there is very little there to reproduce by the time you get past 25kHz and further up. (and we have not debated whether what is there is actual sound or distortion/intermodulation)

Then there is Signal to Noise ratio - this one is a strange one - because certainly in the case of vinyl the dynamic range is greater than the S/N.... you can hear past the noise threshold, and down at least a further 10db if not more. Also, the vinyl 0db level (5cm/s RMS) is not an absolute peak level, rather it is an industry standard designed to allow most needles to track most records.
Some records have peaks up to +15db beyond that...

So if we start with a record with S/N of 78db (not uncommon for a pristine pressing on a top notch table) - we add the +15db above that = 93db

Then we add another 10db for how far we can hear past the noise floor = 103db

So we have a Signal to Noise defined as 78db, with a dynamic range of 103db....

That places the dynamic range advantage with vinyl - at least for 16/44- But then even 16/44's dynamic range is not useable in a domestic situation... with ambient noise at 30db, 96db of dynamic range would peak at serious danger levels for people's hearing!

To conclude: there may be a difference between HiRez and 16/44 - and there may be advantages to vinyl over 16/44.... But there is very serious doubt that most people - and this includes audio pro's - can actually get any benefit from wideband recordings, or from the additional dynamic range provided by 24bit. Also few and far between are the speakers that have reasonable wideband response... and when they do they are so beamy that you would need to have your head in a clamp to listen to it!

Note: I am not saying there is no benefit to higher res as part of the mastering process - and often as part of the replay process too - my system sounds best at 24/96 - even when what I am playing is 16/44 upsampled - it simply puts the digital conversion chipsets in their "sweetspot" (measurably reduces distortion too...) - even though there is NO additional information there.
And 24bit provides much needed headroom for the mastering process.
But I am not convinced there is any need to go beyond 16/44 as the end product delivery resolution.

bye for now

David   

[pansixt]

If you're older and have always had some sort of vinyl collection, I could see making the growth of that collection your priority

I wasn't going to get into this topic, but then why not?

Neeko, I resemble that remark.
And I was a Digital Format Hater early on and used to quote people like Neil Young and others who were very vocal vinyl/analog proponents at that time.

I never got into CD's but later did get into digital tunes with my computer and headphones and called myself lazy.

I didn't even spin records for a couple of years, even though I had a very nice TT,
and many very clean pieces of vinyl.

I am glad that I did get into digital, because IMHO I would be seriously missing a lot of music and a valuable format.

As of today I haven't any "hi-rez music. But I will after my SB Touch gets here tomorrow.

Thanks to Steve (Atlplasma) I now have a nice Oppo player for a CD transport, and thanks to Frank and AVA I have enjoyed my digital tunes thru a very nice DAC.

I can barely wait to download some hi-rez tunes and see for myself.

James

[*Scotty*]

dlaloum, I consider 16/44 as barely having a usable dynamic range of 60 db when a signal recorded at -60db has in excess than 3%THD. The S/N may be better than 100dB but this not a measurement the distortion floor. If the average level on a record is at -30 and the quietest passage is at -60 that leaves 30 dB above the average signal level of -30 for a total usable dynamic range of 60dB.
 I also don't consider The Audiocritic or the BAS authoritative on the subject of High Fidelity audio.
I probably have different of definition of what constitutes a "High Resolution System" as was  used by the participants in AES experiment. The insertion of a 16 bit A/DA/A loop into a system is not the same as taking an analogue signal mastering at 16bits and producing a conventional CD from the 16bit master. We utilize the 16bit format system by playing back CDs and judging by the difference in sound between JVC XRCDs and conventional CDs made from the same master tape it appears that a great deal can go wrong during the CD production process.
 Also if the recorded signal level stayed between -30db and did not exceed 0dB the results could well be valid. Of course only a 30dB dynamic range might been used which would have stayed away from the distortion floor problem. Having no access to the published document I can't comment on the nature of experimental design that was used.
Scotty

[TONEPUB]

My digital system sounds better than your analog system so suck it! Yes I'm talking to YOU the person reading this. 

It's not even close to mine, but that's ok.  My digital front end is ok too.

[kingdeezie]

It's not even close to mine, but that's ok.  My digital front end is ok too.

I think he was kidding.   

[dlaloum]

Hi Scotty,

there is a question with regards to measurement techniques for distortion and digital....

Because there is a "brick wall" of distortion/noise, as the signal drops in level, the noise/distortion rises in direct proportion, creating a false impression of rising distortion...

This is a flaw in the measurement method and definition of the metric.

A different measurement method is required that separates the distortion of the signal from the noise and the brick wall floor. Standard THD measurement won't do it as the measurement method is pre-digital....

Both the tests discussed are AES tests - done by at and under the aegis of the AES (which does have a certain credibility...).  -The audiocritic and BAS entries are reference information with regards to the AES test and the relevant AES papers....

I also didn't publish references to the second test as I do not have them - only references to them which I have had from a third party (via VE).

Clearly there are numerous issues here - not the least of which is avoiding ones own psycho-acoustic response ... separating perception from reality... (raise the level 0.2db, and one source sounds different to the other.... yet they still "seem" to be at the same volume level)

If we are discussing "high resolution" - there would be some relevant parameters to the equation:
1) Linear phase (for direct sound as opposed to reflected)
2) Linear amplitude (in room response)
3) Direct sound should be at least 40% (more?) of the sound reaching listeners ears
4) Frequency Response out to at least 35kHz... (more ?)

Without all the above (which clearly include room influences as well) - any test is fundamentally flawed.
Very very few systems can meet the above requirements (especially phase + wideband response).

And few people have the tools with which to measure the above list. (how many microphones are provided with phase calibration files, and details of their phase response?!?)

I can provide my own experience:
System parameters
1) unmeasured (don't have the tools)
2) Speakers - Gallo Ref3.2 - theoretical response to 35kHz
3) Amps - Onkyo TX-SR876 or Quad 606 (Wideband response not known, but believed to be substantial)
4) Sources HiRez files, 16/44 files, vinyl with a wide range of differing cartridges some of which have wideband response - AT20ss, Grado Gold1, Empire MC1
5) DAC - Onkyo TX-SR876
6) ADC eMU 1616m
7) Headphone Rig: Matrix M-Stage with classA and opamp mods, Beyer DT880/600, Senheiser PCX450, Koss Pro4x, Audio Technica ATHAD700 fed from eMU 1616m DAC

Results: 24/96 sounds better than 16/44 - due to DAC sweetspot, not due to resolution, as this is applicable to 16/44 material as well.
Vinyl passed through the ADA process is sounding perfectly transparent. (ie: cannot differentiate between original and recording in a blind test)

Have I reached the resolving limits of my system? (and therefore can no longer differentiate between more subtle differences) - most likely.
Are there differences between the each digital resolution and vinyl that I am missing - possibly... but not within the boundaries of my room/system/ears.

Previous ADC(s) I used did not achieve the transparency I am now achieving.

Previous speakers I had (Quad ESL989) were marginally more revealing of micro detail - especially in highly complex loud passages (large orchestra playing ff... the Quads would separate out fine detail more effectively than the Gallo's do).... but short of that the Gallo's match the Quads. (and have a higher WAF....)
Tests are providing the same results in the speaker and headphone environments.

From my perspective, format is not relevant... vinyl, 16/44, or HD audio - the results are dependent on the recording/mastering quality and no longer on the speakers/playback or recording format.

bye for now

David