Thread: 24/96 or 24/192

Originally Posted by audiophile65

Thanks everyone for your replies. I will go with the S.M. 24/192 on one particular Linn recording that I listened to samples of and got taken with it's sound right away! It is Helge Lien Trio's Natsukashii.

I only have the redbook here and that already sounds pretty great. Looking forward to hearing your opinion.

Great music by the way!

For whats its worth, musical instruments have sound above 20 Kilohertz. A good read here...There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

Originally Posted by No Disc

For whats its worth, musical instruments have sound above 20 Kilohertz. A good read here...There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

Uh oh, here we go again... My Theremin (a musical instrument) can go to 500 kHz. That doesn't mean we can hear it.

Of course, I would. Then my dream system does not have any speaker cables

Originally Posted by wgscott

I think 96KHz is safely within the overkill range.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Just read this and the references. Ok. Am convinced. 24/96 max in the future.

Originally Posted by Julf

Uh oh, here we go again... My Theremin (a musical instrument) can go to 500 kHz. That doesn't mean we can hear it.

It could be because you don't have any Dracula's lineage...

Roch

But does it effect the listeners perception of the music as a whole? The test results would indicate that it does. I would prefer the instrument sound to be recorded and maintain full spectrum fidelity of the instrument(s), and let my own body decide what to filter or not.

X. Significance of the results
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality." [4]
Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners' EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this "ultra-tweeter" was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.
From the fact that changes in subjects' EEGs "persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation," Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation's being corrupted by "hangover" of reaction to the first.

Originally Posted by Julf

Uh oh, here we go again... My Theremin (a musical instrument) can go to 500 kHz. That doesn't mean we can hear it.

Originally Posted by No Disc

AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.

That's why I went "Oh no, not again". The Oohashi "pre-print" was bound to come up again. In 12 years, nobody has been able to replicate or confirm the findings in that "pre-print", and a lot of pretty knowledgeable people have refuted it. But if you want to believe it, go ahead - this is CA, and every point of view is valuable!

Originally Posted by Julf

That's why I went "Oh no, not again". The Oohashi "pre-print" was bound to come up again. In 12 years, nobody has been able to replicate or confirm the findings in that "pre-print", and a lot of pretty knowledgeable people have refuted it. But if you want to believe it, go ahead - this is CA, and every point of view is valuable!

On the Oohashi, I'll reserve personal judgment until I have a chance to go back pretty thoroughly through Google Scholar and see for myself whether the reputed failure to replicate or refutations have actually been recorded in the academic literature. Also, that would still to my mind leave open the question whether ultrasonic harmonics interact with audible harmonics in ways that affect what we hear from some instruments (those producing significant ultrasonic harmonic energy). But leaving all that aside, I'd like to return to practical reality in this discussion, because practical reality has a way of kicking idealized theory's ass all the time.

- As I've now repeated (probably ad nauseam for some folks), the way your DAC almost certainly works is different for lower res files than for higher res. Given this certainty, instead of discussing whether there are any differences in theory, we can turn to the more productive pursuit (IMHO) of discussing whether the actual, measurable differences in waveforms (e.g., ringing, phase non-linearity) produced by this difference in DAC processing are audible.

- The interesting theoretical issue I noted above, as to whether ultrasonic harmonics interact with audible harmonics to affect what we hear, should not be considered in a vacuum. It would be meaningless to determine that the answer is yes if the needed ultrasonics are not maintained at proper levels through the recording and playback chain (particularly at conversion points - the mics, ADCs, DACs, and speakers). In this connection, I wonder how ultrasonic harmonics might be affected by ultrasonic noise involved in DSD recording and playback.

I am pretty sure that studying ultrasonic harmonics in a vacuum would definitely be a study of no matter...

Originally Posted by Jud

- The interesting theoretical issue I noted above, as to whether ultrasonic harmonics interact with audible harmonics to affect what we hear, should not be considered in a vacuum.

(grin) I just can't resist a good straight line... (/grin)

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

I am pretty sure that studying ultrasonic harmonics in a vacuum would definitely be a study of no matter...



(grin) I just can't resist a good straight line... (/grin)

I know, I came to that realization a shade too late and leaped at the edit button...after 11 minutes.

Originally Posted by Robert Hutton

This has been my experience also, and there is no "scientific" reason for it, nor does there need to be.

There certainly doesn't need to be for you or others to enjoy it. There are some reasons I personally like to have scientific explanations for things:

- I'm an inquisitive person, and I love to learn how stuff works.

- If the effect is something euphonious but ultimately inaccurate, I'd like to know that.

- If the effect in fact results in more accurate reproduction of the musical event, then I'd like to know that; and perhaps there is a better chance of duplicating it for my benefit and others' if the mechanism is known.

Here is one study that is relevant to Ultra-sonics and hearing.

http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detal...igo.asp?id=109


CONCLUSIONS

The eye can serve as an acoustic window to the ear via the intracranial soft tissues. The frequency response is in the low ultrasonic range, and this type of hearing is termed eye conduction. Auditory and vestibular coding is postulated.

In regard to music recording and reproduction, more than doubling the sampling rate (95 kHz/24 bits) will extend the audible frequency range that can be coded in the eighth nerve and will result in a gain in linearity and reduction in quantizing errors, factors that will improve music quality.

Personal headphones could be supplemented or replaced with bone conduction transducers, with frequency responses extending to at least 50 kHz. Such transducers are already in use for medical treatment of tinnitus and can be readily modified for personal musical use (see Fig. 4).

Musical harmonic information is coded by place on the basilar membrane and temporally in neural firing. Ultrasound might contribute to the musical harmonic structure and provide more high-frequency treble emphasis in instruments, such as the cymbals, triangles, trumpets, violins, and oboes.

Eye conduction may contribute to industrial highfrequency loss and tinnitus because ultrasound and high audio frequencies overlap in terms of basilar membrane displacement patterns, especially if high audio subharmonics are generated by intense industrial devices. Simultaneous activation of the saccular and cochlear nerves likely contributes to the symptoms of "ultrasonic sickness."

Originally Posted by Jud

There certainly doesn't need to be for you or others to enjoy it. There are some reasons I personally like to have scientific explanations for things:

- I'm an inquisitive person, and I love to learn how stuff works.

- If the effect is something euphonious but ultimately inaccurate, I'd like to know that.

- If the effect in fact results in more accurate reproduction of the musical event, then I'd like to know that; and perhaps there is a better chance of duplicating it for my benefit and others' if the mechanism is known.

Originally Posted by Jud

And also there is the thing that the older albums did not have to contend with the loudness wars. But a careful well done 24/192 remaster from analog tape of an older recording might show something. As I'm writing this, I'm thinking of the fact that such a remastering is available from HDTracks, as well as MoFi SACD, as well as (in a different but also well-thought-of remastering by DCC) on CD. That is the Beach Boys' epochal Pet Sounds. I have the CD. I've been debating between the download and the SACD. But perhaps (purely in the service of helping to research the questions of hi-res vs. CD and PCM vs. DSD, of course) I'll go ahead and get both, and listen to them all.

So I did. Here's what I heard:

DCC Gold CD (mono 16/44.1): Hey, it's not news that Brian Wilson's a genius as a songwriter and a producer. Yeah, this is mono, but the sounds of the vocals and instruments and even the soundstage height are pretty amazing. There's a well-known interview with Paul McCartney where he says after he heard this album, his first thought was "What are we (the Beatles) gonna do now?" (What they did was Sgt. Pepper, so I guess Paul needn't have worried.) On the first track, "Wouldn't It Be Nice," the first drum thwack is really dramatic, the singing is energetic (the Beach Boys' harmonies were great, Brian made sure of that, but were more driving than Everly-Brothers-beautiful), and the bass is terrific, really coming through a lot more than any of us heard it listening at home on our little record players when the album first came out. (Possibly because there really is no horizontal soundstage due to the mono, the vocals and other instruments are at the middle or top of the vertical soundstage, and the bass is alone at the bottom, which might even focus a little too much attention on it.)

HDTracks download (stereo 24/192): The stats at DR Database and my recollection of the interview with the guy who did the (excellent) remastering indicate this probably came from either the MoFi SACD, or the same source (analog tape) as the SACD. It's a lot more open-sounding than the mono CD. Of course the stereo allows for spacing the vocalists and instruments, where the mono has everyone kind of in there together. (No accident Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production was mono.) It sounds very good, and the sense of openness probably makes it better on a pure sound quality basis overall than the CD. Yet there is a sense of things missing, of just the slightest dissatisfaction I get with the download that I never experienced with the CD. That initial drum thwack on "Wouldn't It Be Nice" isn't quite as dramatic. The bass, so evident on the CD, is almost totally buried. Probably the biggest single point of dissatisfaction is that the vocal harmonies, which are of course the heart of the Beach Boys' sound, have gone from driving on the CD to actually a bit harsh, having a little too much of an edge for my ears.

Mobile Fidelity SACD (DSD converted to 24/88.2 on the fly by iZotope SRC bundled with Audirvana Plus): This is easily the ultimate version I've heard, and I can only imagine how it sounds coming through a DAC that will play native DSD. That drum thwack on "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is enough to give you a surge of adrenalin if you weren't expecting it (maybe even if you are). The bass is back and better integrated with the rest of the band than it is on the CD. And those harmonies are once again driving rather than harsh, while retaining all the openness of the download. This is the version I feel like playing for all my friends of a certain age, turning it up loud and letting it transport us back to our adolescence, trying to match those matchless harmonies with our cracking young teenage voices.

Originally Posted by sandyk

Hi Jud
What mechanism do you believe is responsible for the illusion of height with a mono recording ?
Regards
Alex

I think this was covered pretty well in Audio Doc's thread, where the answers are likely going to be better than my strictly layperson's guesswork knowledge level (especially Barry Diament's comments, since he has had the advantage of hearing recordings all the way through the chain). But for whatever it's worth, I'd guess it must be a combination of cues in the recording (since different recordings have different soundstage heights in my system), audio system, room environment (especially the opportunity for upper back wall and ceiling reflections, or lack thereof), listening position, including the attitude (vertical angle) of the ears vs. the speakers, and psychological factors. I've found I can cause the soundstage to seem higher simply by tilting my head back a little to look at a higher spot on the wall above my speakers, so that's probably got something to do with ear angle, catching additional ceiling reflections, psychological factors, or all three.

Hi Jud
I can get illusions of great height from stereo recordings such as "The Storm from Chesky",and a soundstage with some recordings that can come right up to the listening position, as well as extend past the width of the speakers, but so far I haven't noticed any illusions like that from mono recordings, other than from the factors you just mentioned.Perhaps the layout of drivers on the speakers plays a part here too ?
Kind Regards
Alex

Originally Posted by sandyk

Hi Jud
I can get illusions of great height from stereo recordings such as "The Storm from Chesky",and a soundstage with some recordings that can come right up to the listening position, as well as extend past the width of the speakers, but so far I haven't noticed any illusions like that from mono recordings, other than from the factors you just mentioned.Perhaps the layout of drivers on the speakers plays a part here too ?
Kind Regards
Alex

I'd guess the speakers, including driver layout, as part of the audio system would certainly have an effect. Among the mono recordings I own, Pet Sounds may display the highest vertical soundstage, so there is some contribution from the recording as well. I think DCC did a nice job. And of course there is Brian Wilson, who for example used four different studios to record one song, Good Vibrations (not on Pet Sounds) to get exactly the sound he wanted for each section of that track.

listening position, including the attitude (vertical angle) of the ears

My eye fell on this. I tried to teach my ears some attitude, but all my ears told me is to shut up.
My English isn't the best, but I think you wanted to say lattitude here ? (but which wouldn't exactly be vertical angle)
Ok, saltless. Or too much sugar in the L key.

I have been thinking how to add some useful contribution to this, but I don't think I can. In my view even the height with stereo isn't much of a controllable thing, hence when it happens it is merely the accidental drawing to the speakers of the sound of certain frequencies. Think like this (and Jud, all made up by myself, but also a bit springing from the by you well known W8 experiences) :

The higher the frequency, the more directional it will be; The more directional, the more *chance* there is you will perceive sound more from the speaker. I say "chance" because e.g. an upright bass can spring as much from the speaker as a cymbal can do it (when hard-panned), so I realize that to some extend my explanation can be moot. Still ..

When the picture is assumed above the speakers in the middle (which most often is the case) then any more directional sound will be sourced more from the speaker or speakers. But especially when hard-panned it will draw more to the speaker. Now, since most often our speakers are lower than where the picture (image) of the sound emerges, this means that the sound may be higher and lower or even jump up and down when things (speaker/room) are not aligned the best.

Supposed we can agree somewhat that this is happening, we can also see that it depends on the L/R panning whether this happens and to what extend, up to a triangle like plane the sound springs from.

If this still can be followed and would be true, then a mono picture would still be able to be higher or lower, depending on the frequencies used. The height would even be able to jump up and down, the same like with stereo. The triangle would also still be there with one difference : it will be a fixed triangle and not a moving one (I mean, the sound moving around its sides).

Remember, all made up on the spot so probably worth nothing.
Peter