Old Tech

I've never been able to work that one out either. If there are issues with ADCs that 'need to be corrected' for superior playback sound, then isn't there a far bigger issue if the recording was originally analog? What is the point in correcting a likely inaudible issue with say an early ADC when even modern tape recorders (let alone vintage machines which recorded much older stuff) have wow/flutter, azimuth alignment imperfections and so on which are by order of magnitude far more significant (though still probably inaudible)? There are even some masters that were recorded from archived vinyl...

Good gawd, do you really get your technical/objective information from subjective, advertiser sponsored/conflicted mags like stereophile and the absolute sound catering to audiophools? Evidence please not opinions from cranks like mike fremer. Looks like hook line and sinker to me, successful marketing if you really do believe DACs improve every two years when the majority have been transparent since the late 80s - can I sell you a $2,000 DAC that is less transparent than the one in an Ipod to achieve a "signature sound"? But anyway believe what you want if that makes you happy. Others instead put the effort where it matters, ie finding better mastered material, better speakers and room treatment. The links below are far better sources for objective audio information. We're still waiting for your foobar results and an explantion of how and why a 2016 DAC is more transparent than a 2007 DAC. https://hydrogenaud.io/ Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Interview with Roger Sanders

While you are entitled to your opinion the fact is that the majority of DACs surpassed human levels of transparency by the end of the 1980s, particularly after oversampling became common place in the early 80s. I still have somewhere a mid 80s Pioneer Elite CD player which sounds gorgeous. Some believe myths and marketing hype around high end DACs while others understand audio engineering technology. Perhaps explain how DAC technology was deficient in 2007? I'm all ears. In any event, it doesn't invalidate the main point which is that the Myer and Moran study is still the gold standard study on 16/44 vs hi res. The reason is that it is a peer review paper which to date has not been succeeded by a better study providing a different result. You would think that if it wasn't the case then there are plenty of vested interests in hi res that would have provided this better study over the past 10 years. They haven't done so for obvious reasons. As you would expect with a peer review paper, there have been some criticisms over the years which have mostly been addressed but 2007 DACs sucked has never been one of them. As for listening fatigue, what is that? Sure distorted and clipped music can be fatiguing, particularly the way a lot of modern CDs and hi res music is compressed and often clipped but high resolution playback (CD and up) in itself can be fatiguing to some people. Higher resolution music uses more of our brains and like all our senses, sight, smell, touch etc, the more intense the quicker fatigue sets in. It doesn't fatigue me though in the same way as doing a few hours in the studio where the fidelity is greater than recorded playback. Any engineer can tell you that studio work is fatiguing after a couple hours. If you are one of those people who get listening fatigue on unclipped, high fidelity music that is a pity. There are people that also get fatigue with high resolution video, which is why some TVs have a "night" function which softens the picture and lowers the resolution for a less fatiguing late night viewing. It is no surprise that you find vinyl less fatiguing given it is a lower resolution format than 16/44 - I too sometimes find vinyl more relaxing late at night when tired.

I think skeptical more than sarcastic, that is precisely the reason why Meridian, HD Tracks and so on would not get behind a study like the Myer and Moran because it will show that there is no difference if you control all variables (eg masterings, DAC competency at various sample rates etc) except the sampling rate and bit depths because there is no magic behind digital audio.

Easily hear the differences? I very much doubt it. If it was so then the industry would be all over it, no need to master hi res differently, no need to have a "hi res" indicator on the player to illicit confirmation bias etc. What you are probably hearing is different masters. How about putting one of your hi res files through foobar (with the DBX plug in) and copy and paste the results? I have nothing against hi res downloads, I have many that sound excellent, but I don't like the snake oil being used to justify high prices for a non-physical product.

These type of threads always degenerate into a analog vs digital debate - the op was simply asking if anyone here also collects records. I do, well not really collecting these days as I have over 1000 LPs, having grown up with them since I got into hi fi over 40 years ago. But since some are having this debate and posting unsupported claims, the reality is that it depends on the recording - or more precisely how the music was produced and implemented for that format. I have many vinyl records that sound better than the CD version of a particular album and vice versa. However if I compare my well mastered CDs (and hi res downloads) to my well mastered records, digital always comes ahead to my ears. Music though is subjective so YMMV but objectively, there is not even one analog measurement where a vinyl record matches, let alone exceed, that of a CD let alone hi res. In any event, vinyl is not the best analog format, it is beaten by a good rtr and a hi fi VCR (the latter's analog measurements come close to a CD) but there isn't much material available for the other analog formats.

The paper below (which is what that article is based on) is over a year old actually, but presented to the AES a few months back. The metadata analysis has hardly set the audio engineering world on fire as the two links further below show. The main flaw in that study is it combined all tests on this subject, even those that over time have been accepted as either flawed or unable to be replicated. While the AES metadata analysis was funded by Meridian, a purveyor of hi res products, that in itself doesn't present a problem if conflicts of interests are managed. What is surprising is why fund a meta study on papers of dubious quality when they could have funded another year long, properly controlled study like the Myer and Moran which is still considered to be the gold standard study on the hi res vs 16/44 issue (the last link below). AES Press Release » Research Finds Audible Differences with High-Resolution Audio » A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hi-Res) » Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio » http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Cheers.

Slightly different question, out of curiosity more than anything else. There are some recordings that have a dynamic range of up to and over 100db. Just wondering what happens to the dynamic range when it is cut to an LP, given its dynamic range of 70db max? Is the dynamic range compressed or just cut-off at the ends?

Actually, you get some of these debates in certain sections of the videophile community, similar to that section of audiophiles in regard to ultrasonic content. Some argue that analogue broadcast and CRT sets are better than modern digital and plasma monitors for that reason. You may recall that with CRTs it was always recommended not to sit too close because of radiation. The argument here goes along the lines that even though we can't see infra red or ultra violet, they somehow influence the light frequencies we can see. Of course when pressed for evidence, none is provided just that their eyes can notice the difference... sound familiar?

Good points. In summary: there is little, if any, music content or harmonics past 20khz Even if there were, it is unlikely to be recorded or retained through the production process Even if the above two hold true, we simply would not hear it. Even if we throw away a 100 years of audiologists day to day tests and assume we can hear these frequencies, they would be so faint that any music content below it would mask it. 24/96, 32bit, 48bit etc are very useful for recording and mixing, allowing much headroom without worrying about summing artefacts and noise. Some bright spark saw a marketing opportunity to call it "hi res", we never referred to this as such in the studio, and potentially a new way to get people to replace their music collection, again. The usually higher standard of mastering of hi res - given its target audience - means that the material often does sound noticeably better. If competently downsampled to 16/44 there is no difference we can hear. After two decades there is still no credible study - at least of peer review standard - that supports the assertion that "hi res" in itself leads to higher SQ that humans can hear. There are several studies of peer review quality that do not support the assertion that hi res in itself leads to higher SQ humans can hear. If you do hear a difference it is more likely due to better mastering, something wrong with the 16/44 downsample or expectation bias. The more the listener is dismissive of logic, the available evidence accumulated over the past 20 years and is convinced that there has to be a difference, the more likely they will hear a difference. This is human nature and hence why only a controlled DBX test matters. This is not opinion or a belief, in contrast to that other guy, but is what we know about human hearing backed up by real world peer review papers.

Thank you. Although I am new to this forum, I've been an on-off lurker for a while. I'm sure most people here are not like that other guy.

Mate, go away I have nothing more to say to you. Next time I am in Sydney I'll bring my dog whistle and blow it - the guy who turns would have to be you. Try to read and understand what I said about different mastering and if you still want to accuse people of being delusional, write to the AES and tell them they are crazy, and so too were their subjects, including the audiophiles and musicians who participated.

Give it a rest pal. I did no such thing! Where have I claimed anyone on this forum as stupid, though I'd certainly make you an exception! Most audiophiles know that mastering matters and more important than if the medium is CD, "hi res" or vinyl. It is also understood that any medium that is targeted to an audiophile audience such as SACDs, MFSL CDs, "hi res" or half speed vinyl is going to be mastered with greater care. You replied with fantasy land stuff such as being able to hear 30khz and have confused the use of 24/96 for recording/mastering with playback. At least I provided credible evidence to support what I wrote. Notably, you did not even try to debate the points at all, like what flaws are in that study, why should a higher sample rate than 44.1 result in "better" sine waves, instead you gloss over all that with ad hominen attacks and strawman examples. As for the spelling mistake, yes shoot me but perhaps it would be more productive for you to read and try to understand it.

Cheers Flavio, thanks I'll look into it.