24/192 debate.....round two hundred!

[mayhem13]

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Don't shoot the messenger please.

[NOMBEDES]

I thought this was posted before? Am I wrong?

[sandyk]

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

No. Reposting outdated research like this is very silly indeed, and mischievous. (grin) .
When will E.E.s in general, get it through their closed minds, that the human ear also responds to the RISE TIME of a waveform well past what has been previously accepted . There is recent posted research about that, and IIRC it was also mentioned in C.A. quite recently. However, while some designers insist on rolling off response of amplifiers and speakers just past 20kHZ, the benefits of wider bandwidth will not be appreciated by many. Sony originally manufactured tweeters with usable response to 100kHz to go with SACD. That was around the time that some amplifiers were destroyed by high SACD out of band residuals. Not long after, SACD player output filtering was altered to overcome that problem.

[mayhem13]

Didn't see it the first time.....but glad I did elsewhere.

[Robert Hutton]

There are still many who believe climate change is a myth, that Obama's birth certificate is fake, that guns don't kill, that the earth is flat, that UFO's are abundant and the government is hiding it....hell, I was all set to go with the Mayans on the end of the world last month and even that didn't pan out!

There are always deniers on pretty much everything.

[wgscott]

There are still many who believe climate change is a myth, that Obama's birth certificate is fake, that guns don't kill, that the earth is flat, that UFO's are abundant and the government is hiding it....hell, I was all set to go with the Mayans on the end of the world last month and even that didn't pan out!

There are always deniers on pretty much everything.

Including people who deny the basic physiology of hearing, and the physics behind the Nyquist theorem.

[Blu]

Oh Bill, still playing the audiophool, I think it was Barry Diament from Soudkeeper Recordings who found that when making digital copies from the mastertape that he could not distinguish between the sound of the master tape and the digital copy until the digital copy got to 192/24.

Barry please forgive me if I misquoted, if it was not you, it was someone else in the recording industry.

Cheers from Australia.

[Boris75]

Including people who deny the basic physiology of hearing, and the physics behind the Nyquist theorem.

Something tells me that you might have been trained in physics primarily. I was trained in maths and personally I would rather say the maths behind the Nyquist theorem.

I hope this initiates a welcome flame war between math- and physics-oriented types...

[Musicophile]

As much as I'm interested in the topic, how about putting this debate to rest until somebody actually has some NEW insights to share?

[Boris75]

As much as I'm interested in the topic, how about putting this debate to rest until somebody actually has some NEW insights to share?

+1 on your recommendation.

[PeterSt]

As much as I'm interested in the topic, how about putting this debate to rest until somebody actually has some NEW insights to share?

Oh ... well ...

Something tells me that you might have been trained in physics primarily. I was trained in maths and personally I would rather say the maths behind the Nyquist theorem.

This one is not so bad for a new discussion. But since that would come down to listening and explaining it would be a difficult one.
But we can always try to start out with this one :

Including people who deny the basic physiology of hearing, and the physics behind the Nyquist theorem.

Implying ?
No discussion without a view from someone. So here's mine :

Physiology of hearing ? BS. Why ? because I exactly *never* encountered someone in my listening room or elsewhere who did not agree or amongst all of us for that matter. Things only go wrong with the so called necessity of needing ABX etc etc to prove realtiy.
That is, when physiology of hearing is brought down to a subjective matter "because" ...
Otherwise it's not a moot thing at all, and it can be explicitly utilized (won't say more for a more nice discussion :-).

Physics behind Nyquist eh ? Well, I personally think this is a good one. Let's say math is theory and physics is practice ? yea, something like that. One thing seems wrong to me here (see quote) : physics are not to be denied I think. Physics are not subject to that. But of course this makes denying that after all a subject within itself.
So all still good.

Now what about denying math ?

Hey hey, now this is a different matter. Let's read that nice paper from Dan Lavry again (no no, not link to it). The way that is written, with Nyquist as the lead, can make you clearly conclude that with a sample rate of 1 sample per second *still* nothing is lost. Aha. And this IS what Nyquist says you know.
So deny the math ?

Or do we not understand the math perhaps ?
What's often overlooked is how math like this uses (no, utilizes) infinities which can't exist in real life. So too with Nyquist. No wait, so too with filtering. Yep, that's it. Use filters of inifinite length and all can be restored ("reconstructed"). True for the math, but never true for practice.

Wait again, where in that math ... no, ... theorem it is said that reconstruction implies a boat load of ringing ?
Ahaaa .... so things DO come for a price.

So, all clear. Hires is better. The more hirezzed, the better it will be. Hey, 5.6MHz, that should do it. Ah, wait, one bit eh ? Ok, so that comes for a price too.
Come on, just take 24/192. That's sufficient enough.

It is.

But where is the well done implementation in my collection ? That can't be them 3 discs from Barry. There must be more. There has to be more !
No, there isn't more. Hardly.

It is all too late for that. With HDTracks ahead it is all misery. It will never come around.
So, round 200 of 192 being pointless should denote that it is pointless to talk about it. Stupid theory only. It is better, but it isn't there.
Dream on.

But this is how at least I am involved in making Redbook sound better than any hires around. Ah, a commercial after all eh ?
No.
The math sucks and physiology of hearing is key. Physics of a few other things is key too;
Sort that out in well fashion and utilize *that*. Then it happens.
Too bad I am the only ignorant. But I let it happen anyway. Slow(er) though.
Don't forget how it happens : ignore the math and appreciate further physics. Utilize it but respect it.
This is no BS you know. It's an explicit strategy and it works.

Peter

PS: What works ? ah, never mind. I'm in a good mood and figured that those interested will know anyway.

[Jud]

Including people who deny the basic physiology of hearing, and the physics behind the Nyquist theorem.

Nyquist ain't in question, at least not by me. And we can also leave aside rise time/transient response, though I do think human neurological response to transient phenomena is an interesting topic with some fairly recent research on it. Let's get beyond the abstract and right to the nitty gritty, what happens inside your DAC. Since I just discussed this in a related thread, I'll link to it here: 24/96 or 24/192

[Jud]

Peter, I'm starting to understand you better. This scares me.

[Paul.Raulerson]

Best zinger this month. Of course, it is an unreasonable argument, but why let reason spoil the fun?

One trivially easy way to settle the issue with finality for each person individually of course. Utterly infallible. Cheap too.

Go listen.

If you hear a difference, it does matter. If you do not hear a difference, then it does not matter.

End of story.

All the rest of this is pretty much troll bait. If you go listen for yourself, no matter what the result, and someone has a theory that disagrees with your results- ignore them. Reality trumps theory every time. That is as true in audio as it is in physics.

Paul

Including people who deny the basic physiology of hearing, and the physics behind the Nyquist theorem.

[bluesman]

If you hear a difference, it does matter. If you do not hear a difference, then it does not matter. End of story. All the rest of this is pretty much troll bait.

I'm with you all the way, Paul - that's why I use inexpensive Audioquest interconnects to route the Foobar-streamed signal from my motherboard's digital out to my Emotiva DAC to my 38 year old speakers via my 30 year old preamp. I did have to replace my amp last year, so I bought a PrimaLuna Prologue 5 after listening to stuff in all price ranges. I've simply never heard anything that was astonishingly better than my own stuff. Yes, there are some things that I think sound a little bit "better" - but the marginal difference simply isn't worth the cost to me.

Sadly, though, it's not the end of the story for those who have less than complete faith in their own ears and opinions. I have many friends who buy because of reviews, without ever listening to the item beforehand. Some seem to want to be thought more knowledgeable and discerning than they are (or, in some cases, than it's possible to be). Others are concerned that the rest of us can hear things they can't, fearing that we'll think less of them if they "settle for" things they'd really be very happy to have otherwise.

I have no quarrel at all with those who simply love something and enjoy having it even if far less expensive things would meet their functional needs as well. No reasonable Patek owner would argue that it keeps better time than a Casio. I'm all for having things "just because" - it's the false justification that drives me up the wall. Personally, I save that for my wife.......

David

[mav52]

It's all wrapped up in some Hokus Pokus, Who Do Voodoo like the infamous 'Intelligent Chip' to Quantum dots. There could be a delusional trait to all of this but we still have to *listen* to make our on decisions and the trouble is, we all don't listen the same.

[4est]

Peter, I'm starting to understand you better. This scares me.

ROTFLMAO

I love the way he slices and dices. I am not sure I always agree or understand, but typically I enjoy viewing his approach. Maybe it is simply the Dutch in me.

[Jud]

I'm with you all the way, Paul - that's why I use inexpensive Audioquest interconnects to route the Foobar-streamed signal from my motherboard's digital out to my Emotiva DAC to my 38 year old speakers via my 30 year old preamp. I did have to replace my amp last year, so I bought a PrimaLuna Prologue 5 after listening to stuff in all price ranges. I've simply never heard anything that was astonishingly better than my own stuff. Yes, there are some things that I think sound a little bit "better" - but the marginal difference simply isn't worth the cost to me.

Sadly, though, it's not the end of the story for those who have less than complete faith in their own ears and opinions. I have many friends who buy because of reviews, without ever listening to the item beforehand. Some seem to want to be thought more knowledgeable and discerning than they are (or, in some cases, than it's possible to be). Others are concerned that the rest of us can hear things they can't, fearing that we'll think less of them if they "settle for" things they'd really be very happy to have otherwise.

I have no quarrel at all with those who simply love something and enjoy having it even if far less expensive things would meet their functional needs as well. No reasonable Patek owner would argue that it keeps better time than a Casio. I'm all for having things "just because" - it's the false justification that drives me up the wall. Personally, I save that for my wife.......

David

If you have a way to convince our wives a Patek Philippe keeps better time, good god, man, don't keep it to yourself!

About listening before buying - I'm with you on the old-but-good stuff. I have cables older than some of the people on the forum. But in fairness, anyone looking for equipment these days doesn't have nearly the opportunity to listen before buying that we did decades ago, unless they want to return ship a lot of auditioned equipment to online dealers. When I bought my new DAC (the old ones were good, but to my ears the new ones are one area where there's been improvement - not surprising considering the computation involved), it was online, but the designer was the same person who designed the old DAC I'd had in my system and liked for 20 years. Someone buying a DAC for the first time doesn't have the advantage of familiarity with the designer's previous work like I did.

[ringenesherre]

There are still many who believe climate change is a myth

Climate is always changing. There are theories that predict a global warming due to man-made increases in the CO2 concentration. With no significant warming during the last decade (even 15 years), theory is once more trumped by reality. Obviously, mankind's actions have *some* effect on the climate. But no one currently has a theory that even comes close to describe the size of this effect.

Compared to that, our knowledge of sound (re)production is stunningly accurate :-)

Cheers,
Peter

[firedog]

Actually the understanding of hearing is pretty limited. We might understand the basics, but not much more.

WG, did you listen to this: RMAF 11: Noise Shaping Sigma Delta Based Dacs, Martin Mallison, CTO, ESS Technology - YouTube

The ESS DAC chip designer talks about how some people can hear aspects of sound they don't even know how to measure.

In fact, there have even been discoveries about the anatomy of the middle/inner ear in the last few years. Suprisingly, it isn't something that was explored in depth before. If we don't fully know the anatomical/physical aspects of the ear, do you think we can fully understand hearing?

In addition, we certainly don't fully understand the role of the brain in hearing, and without a good understanding of that, we certainly can't have an advanced understanding or what hearing is.

I'm not sure why Nyquist always gets brought up in these discussions. Have you heard people claim they can hear above 20K hz?
I haven't, but that doesn't mean that hi-res files can't sound different than lower res ones. Maybe it isn't all about simple frequency response.

[beetlemania]

With no significant warming during the last decade (even 15 years), theory is once more trumped by reality.

Ah, yes, you must be referring to this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//hadcrut4.jpg

May I suggest you restrict your science to the realm of computer and not statistics or climate?

[JohnMH]

"WG, did you listen to this: RMAF 11: Noise Shaping Sigma Delta Based Dacs, Martin Mallison, CTO, ESS Technology - YouTube"

This was an eye opener for me. Definitely worth watching. I've been skeptical about the benefits of very high sampling rates in the past, but I'm not so sure now. The pro audio systems I'm aware of have pretty much settled on 24/96. Curious if there is any move to go beyond this "standard" in the pro world?

[bluesman]

If you have a way to convince our wives a Patek Philippe keeps better time, good god, man, don't keep it to yourself!

My wife knows only too well that quartz keeps fine time. But she didn't know that the waves emitted by a quartz watch cause interference that muddies up one's sound. It's been proven that a fine mechanical watch enhances acoustic focus, extends and tightens bass, and lifts the veil of imprecision from the reproduced sound stage. So you might try "We need a Patek to restore air and sonic perspective to our system, dear." - maybe it'll work better for you.....

But in fairness, anyone looking for equipment these days doesn't have nearly the opportunity to listen before buying that we did decades ago, unless they want to return ship a lot of auditioned equipment to online dealers.

Aha! This is but one of the benefits of having a robust network of local retail audio retailers - one really does get what one pays for. Although it's a real hassle (and I haven't had to resort to it), I see nothing wrong with auditioning remotely if it's the only way to hear this stuff. Internet prices are lower in large part because there's no need to provide the experience before the sale. Back in the day, we could listen and compare all afternoon, then take what we liked home overnight and see how it did in our own listening rooms with the rest of our own stuff. Shipping the stuff back and forth is just the cost of doing business for the seller and an additional cost of acquisition for the buyer.

Paying list or close to it meant buying less stuff - but it also meant a level of knowledge, service and convenience that went away when local audio dealers went away. There still ain't no free lunch.

[Jud]

Climate is always changing. There are theories that predict a global warming due to man-made increases in the CO2 concentration. With no significant warming during the last decade (even 15 years), theory is once more trumped by reality. Obviously, mankind's actions have *some* effect on the climate. But no one currently has a theory that even comes close to describe the size of this effect.

Compared to that, our knowledge of sound (re)production is stunningly accurate :-)

Cheers,
Peter

Pretty please, may we not have this discussion here? The Anything but CA forum is I think highly suited for anyone masochistic enough to want to get into this subject.

[Jud]

Paying list or close to it meant buying less stuff - but it also meant a level of knowledge, service and convenience that went away when local audio dealers went away. There still ain't no free lunch.

There are online sellers who provide close to that level of service. I wrote a nice email to Schiit about shipping my Bifrost at a slower speed than the one I'd selected in the order, saying that it wound up not making any difference because a storm had knocked out our power (not Sandy, a Halloween storm the previous year) so I couldn't have listened to it even if it had arrived earlier, and it saved me shipping charges to boot. Then I still felt like a heel when someone from Schiit took the trouble to respond to my email within hours at 1:30 am their time (!) saying even though there was no impact on me they apologized. And when I was an oaf and tore a speaker cable off a connector, Ron at Omega Mikro repaired it for me free of charge (I'd of course offered to pay, since it was my fault) and had it back to me the same week.

Back to our topic - as I have mentioned previously in this thread, for the vast majority of us, our DACs will handle 44.1k differently than 96k, and 96k differently than 192k, in that the lower resolutions will run through more rounds of filtering/oversampling than the higher resolutions. Those filters are imperfect (this is mathematically provable). So it's indisputable that the vast majority of DACs will put lower-res files through more rounds of imperfect filtering than they will for higher-res files. The germane topic is then to what extent we can hear the effects of these extra rounds of filtering.