Popular Post numlog Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas, its not the holy grail of sound but any further improvements will be very subtle refinements. DXD and DSD128 is pretty spectacular but redbook makes up 99% of the music. As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise. Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low. Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes. Luckily 24 bit 44.1kHz are pretty common now but there is so much music, particularly electronic and hip hop, where its true essence will be lost inside this inferior format. Teresa and Doak 2 Link to comment
semente Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 No schiit! "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post AnotherSpin Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 Hip Hop in quality lesser than 24 bit is sacrilege. esldude, Jud and sockpit 1 2 Link to comment
mordante Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Almost all of my digital music is 16/44.1 I don't think high sample rates sound different/much better. I own 1 24/192 album, So by Peter Gabriel. Not sure if it sound different or better compared to the 16/44.1 [br] Link to comment
Popular Post ElviaCaprice Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 "16 bit files almost unlistenable now..." You obviously have not heard a Chord DAC doing bit perfect with redbook. CNoblet and skatbelt 2 (JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14) (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer) Link to comment
Popular Post Cary Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 Noise floor of 50db in your room + a 90db dynamic range for 16 bit = 140db peak levels to exploit the full dynamic range. I would love to know what you are using for equipment that allows you to hit those levels, much less higher to hear the extra dynamics of a higher bit depth. You also must have amazing ears to still be able to hear anything after hitting those levels. sockpit, danadam, mansr and 5 others 5 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post PeterSt Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 Not many are going to agree ... Quote So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas Maybe you forgot your DAC ? lucretius, sligolad, buonassi and 2 others 4 1 Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Popular Post adamdea Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 hours ago, numlog said: So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas, its not the holy grail of sound but any further improvements will be very subtle refinements. DXD and DSD128 is pretty spectacular but redbook makes up 99% of the music. As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise. Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low. Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes. Luckily 24 bit 44.1kHz are pretty common now but there is so much music, particularly electronic and hip hop, where its true essence will be lost inside this inferior format. Have a go at downloading the test files here and see whether you have a preference for each pair. If so note them down. https://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/04/internet-test-24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio.html There is no haze or compression with 16 bits relative to 24 bits, just a higher quantisation/dither noise level. [this was covered in a thread recently] However for most recordings the background noise level is much higher than the 16 bit quantisation noise. If you want to (actually) hear the difference its best to use stupidly amplified digital silence. There was an article by Bob Stuart years ago, supposedly arguing for hi rez where he showed that if you ignored masking [which is absurd] you could just hear triangular pdf dither noise in a 16 bit recording if you played it at 120dB peak level [which you can't or you would be deaf]. Even then you wouldn't be able to hear the quantisation noise if you used noise shaped dither. Jud, tmtomh and JediJoker 2 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
Andyman Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 hours ago, numlog said: As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise. Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low. Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes. Hmm. So you’ve improved your system so much, the vast majority of recorded music sounds worse. Red book is quite capable of stunning sq. Don’t have a clue what you have or have changed but I respectfully suggest you haven’t improved in all areas. Regarding electronic, hip hop etc. you may be aware of recent posts from a mastering engineer who posted here for a while before being banned (I think?) for being a bit of an arse. During his brief tenure he did however bring some interesting insights. Of relevance here is that 16/44 is actually the preferred choice (admittedly often mastered in 24 bit for headroom) for many masters due to the particular sound density (my words and interpretation). This has further implications for those upsampling to dsd etc. Changing the sound perhaps but also presumably moving further from the (audio) truth... Link to comment
Popular Post GUTB Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 Anyone who gets serious in digital playback — gets a modern DAC, does some basic clean-up of power and source noise — is going to leave 16 bit audio behind because it sounds like crap compared to high res. You can improve Redbook playback through multibit and high end ladder DACs. You can add tube buffers and/or tubed source gear to warm it up. But in the end of the day, high res beats low res and nothing changes that. numlog, Teresa and Doak 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 If you listen to Redbook, improving your system should mean the sound of Redbook also improves. There are setups where the sound of Redbook can be so good that you can’t tell much difference to hi-res. Sonicularity, lucretius, Les Habitants and 6 others 6 3 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post diecaster Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 25 minutes ago, GUTB said: Anyone who gets serious in digital playback — gets a modern DAC, does some basic clean-up of power and source noise — is going to leave 16 bit audio behind because it sounds like crap compared to high res. You can improve Redbook playback through multibit and high end ladder DACs. You can add tube buffers and/or tubed source gear to warm it up. But in the end of the day, high res beats low res and nothing changes that. Sorry...you are exaggerating at best and full of it at worst. I have some 24/176.4 content that sounds better than 16/44.1 content and vice versa. Usually, it comes down to the masterings and not the difference between Red Book and high res. JediJoker, sockpit, eternaloptimist and 5 others 5 2 1 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Cary said: Noise floor of 50db in your room + a 90db dynamic range for 16 bit = 140db peak levels to exploit the full dynamic range. I would love to know what you are using for equipment that allows you to hit those levels, much less higher to hear the extra dynamics of a higher bit depth. You also must have amazing ears to still be able to hear anything after hitting those levels. Hi Cary - While your numbers are correct I get the sense that the OP is't going to receive your offering very well. I suggest different tone and possible explanation so s/he actually understands what you're saying and could learn something. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 I have tons of 16 bit content and I've never listened to it and thought that the 16 bits was limiting. I'm willing to bet there are other things going on that the OP is attributing to 16 bits. sandyk, sligolad, Blake and 4 others 5 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 I have both CD quality and hi-res music in my library. Now and again I'll be listening to something with unusual clarity and think to myself, maybe there's something to hi-res after all. Then I look at the info display and notice it's plain old CD quality, just very well recorded. jabbr, Ajax, Tone Deaf and 19 others 20 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 12 minutes ago, mansr said: I have both CD quality and hi-res music in my library. Now and again I'll be listening to something with unusual clarity and think to myself, maybe there's something to hi-res after all. Then I look at the info display and notice it's plain old CD quality, just very well recorded. Happens often I believe. Ajax, Fokus, 4est and 1 other 4 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 use Key Factor Analysis in a validated multi-variate model to determine what to listen to Link to comment
AudioDoctor Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Curious... No electron left behind. Link to comment
semente Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 2 hours ago, GUTB said: Anyone who gets serious in digital playback — gets a modern DAC, does some basic clean-up of power and source noise — is going to leave 16 bit audio behind because it sounds like crap compared to high res. You can improve Redbook playback through multibit and high end ladder DACs. You can add tube buffers and/or tubed source gear to warm it up. But in the end of the day, high res beats low res and nothing changes that. Not. A. Clue. tmtomh 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post AudioDoctor Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 < hits play on a 16/44 album, leans back, takes a sip of coffee, luxuriates in the beautiful sound... sligolad, Les Habitants and Nordkapp 1 2 No electron left behind. Link to comment
Popular Post Blake Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 The premise of the OP's post is just wrong. It isn't even debatable. P.S. I am actually wondering if the OP is joking and made this post to wind everybody up. eternaloptimist and PeterSt 2 Speaker Room: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Pacific 2 | Viva Linea | Constellation Inspiration Stereo 1.0 | FinkTeam Kim | Revel subs Office Headphone System: Lumin U1X | Lampizator Golden Gate 3 | Viva Egoista | Abyss AB1266 Phi TC Link to comment
GUTB Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said: < hits play on a 16/44 album, leans back, takes a sip of coffee, luxuriates in the beautiful sound... What’s your system? Link to comment
Kimo Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, GUTB said: What’s your system? I don't think the system is going to be the answer. More likely: 1. Some people still like 16/44, even though they can hear a difference with high resolution 2. Some people can't hear a difference, even though it is there. 3. Some people don't want to hear a difference. I keep looking for quotes from audio engineers telling us that 16/44 is transparent to the source. I haven't had much luck with that. Maybe 18 or 20, or not at all, is what I find. Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post semente Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 Some a bit dated thoughts on real world 24 bit recording by some recording and equipment industry people. While discussing SACD’s and DVD-A’s aledged superiority in a webforum a recording engineer posted his description of real world 24 bit recording. I don’t really feel like translating the whole thing but I’ll try to sumarize it in numbers as best as I can: The DVD Audio has an S/N of 144 dB (6 x 24 = 144) but current recording and reproduction capabilities are far from that number. And let's not forget that the threshold of human hearing is somewhere around 120 dB (747 during take-off at 10 metres)... MIC Neumann’s most silent mic the TLM 103 has an S/N of 131 dB while the most common for “classical” and famous M150, when used in a Decca Tree configuration, lowers this number to 119 dB Assuming you are using the TLM 103 you have already lost 13 dB MIC PREAMP Next comes the mic preamplifier, let’s say, the excellent Millennia HV 3D with an S/N of 133 dB which is above the mic’s capabilities A/DC A good 24 bit AD like the APOGEE 16 X has an S/N of around 120 dB and this means removing 11 dB from the previous weak link, the mic, at 131 dB You are now recording at 20 bit (120 / 6 = 20) He goes on to say that after DSP, noise floor and mastering are considered you are down to around 18 bits or even 12 if you go analog and back. Daniel Weiss of Weiss Labs If you had a room and a system and choice of music that you have full control over, do you think you could tell a €200 CD player from a €15000 transport feeding one of your DAC’s? I wouldn’t expect to hear a difference actually. Because of the jitter suppression? Yes, provided of course that the data is read correctly. ... Given the Nyquist theorem and the limits of human hearing, is the only reason we sometimes can tell 16 bits 44,1kHz from hi-res, just the reconstruction filters? Because theoretically we shouldn’t hear the higher resolution. I don’t know, maybe it has to do with non-linearities in the ear, so high frequencies above 20kHz can end up at lower frequencies through intermodulation. Maybe there’s something to that, I don’t know. But then the speakers have to do that, and the microphones etc. A problem is that very few microphones record that high frequencies. If you analyze a 24-bit, 96kHz recording of classical music, it might not have anything above, say, 25kHz. But still people think it sounds much better. So could it be the bit depth, the extra dynamics? It’s different in the D-A converter, with the frequencies it can transmit and the anti-aliasing or the reconstruction filter which can be much flatter, so it gives you less artifacts from the filter. Your equipment supports up to 24 bits, 192kHz. Is that completely overkill? Yes. Bob Stuart of Meridian once gave a talk at AES and his proposal was to keep it at 60 kHz. The closest one we have as a standard is 88,2, but more equipment supports 96. 96 is coming from the studio standard, doubled from 48. But 88,2 or 96 will be plenty. So anyone claiming to hear a difference between 96 and 192 would either be hearing placebo or in how it was converted to that sampling rate? That is a point of course. I know of professional people having done tests with these conversions and they can hardly hear a difference, even if it’s up to 192 and down to 44,1 again. Especially if they use Saracon! Yes, they used Saracon. That seems to have become a bit of a standard? There are some competitors, but it’s one of the better ones. There’s a website actually, comparing all kinds of sampling rate converters. And saracon does very well. Yes, luckily (laughs). If you could choose only one format, would it be 24 bits, 44,1kHz or 16 bits, 88,2 kHz? Probably 16/88. At least in theory, our ears can manage more than 96dB of dynamics, but we can’t hear much above 20kHz. So according to that, the extra dynamics should be better. Professional people usually go with larger word lengths than bandwidth. That’s because they will do processing with the sound, so they want that margin. As an end format, you can do a very decent encoding in 16 bits. I think the dynamic range is enough, you don’t have such dynamic range in a listening situation usually. Buy you have a finite number of steps within those 16 bit, so it’s not infinite precision. Would you ever need a finer resolution than that? The question is whether you need the signal to noise ratio basically. It’s 96dB at 16 bits, which is huge. You have maybe a 30dB dynamic range in the music, and that is already quite a lot actually. So you still have a 60dB lower noise floor. I don’t think you hear the noise of a CD. At normal listening levels, do you hear the noise floor? No. See, that’s what I mean. http://ukiro.com/2011/05/12/interview-daniel-weiss/ Again Daniel Weiss of Weiss Labs MI: Is digital recording at it's peak or is it just setting the grounds. Some say that analog vinyl had 100 years to improve and digital is here for some good 20 years. How do you see this? DW: With the currently standardized high sampling rates (88.2kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz etc.) and a wordlength of 24 bits, we have hit the boundary of what makes sense (sampling rate) and what is physically achievable (wordlength). I can imagine that there will be improvements when doing A/D and D/A conversion, but the formats (sampling rates, wordlength) are here to stay, I hope at least. MI: What sampling frequency is enough? Some say that even 44 khz 16 bit is good if mastered well, other say that 24bit and 96khz is more than enough, and again third camp say that only 192 khz (DSD) or even more would bring the quality of analogue or natural timber to life. DW: For the human hearing 44.1/16 is enough. For technical reasons it is advantageous to go with higher sampling rates. 88.2 or 96 would be fine. Anything higher does not make much sense in my opinion. The advantages of higher sampling rates (higher than 44.1) are that the filters in the A/D and D/A Converters can be made less demanding and thus less colouring. For the processing of digital audio, which is necessary during e.g. the mastering process, it is advantageous to have high sampling rates as well. MI: Do you have perspective on ever going tube vs transistor debate? DW: Take what you like best. A tube is colouring the signal differently than a transistor does, so it is a matter of taste what you prefer. One can follow the purist approach, where any colouring is avoided as much as possible. In that case I would go with transistors. MI: Some say analog and vinyl are still better sounding. How do you feel about this? DW: Again, matter of taste. I never argue about such things, because I do not want to tell people what they “ought to like”. If they like vinyl better, so be it. I don’t have a problem with that. Vinyl is technically inferior to a CD, but it seems some like it, maybe exactly because of those shortcomings. http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/01/interview-with-daniel-weiss-from-weiss.html Dan Lavry of Lavry Engineering We see that year by year there is kind of race for bits and high sampling rates. Where do you think this will stop? Regarding bits: The ear can not hear more then about 126dB of dynamic range under extreme conditions. At around 6dB per bit, that amounts to 21 bits, which is what my AD122 MKIII provides (unweighted). Regarding sample rate: The ear can not hear over 25-30KHz, therefore 60-70KHz would be ideal. Unfortunately there is no 65KHz standard, but 88.2KHz or even 96KHz is not too far from the optimal rate. 192KHz is way off the mark. It brings about higher distortions, bigger data files, increased processing costs, and all that for no up side! People that think that more samples are better, and that digital is only an approximation, do not understand the fundamentals of digital audio. What rate and bits are enough for today music reproduction and recording? Regarding processing bits: For music production, for adding and mixing many channels, for various digital processing, we need more bits. One must make a distinction between processing bits and conversion bits. Say for example that you have 32 channels, each channel made out of 24 conversion bits. If you sum the channels you end up with 31 bits. At the end of the process, the 31 bit sum can be reduced back to say 24 bits, or to 16 bits, because the ear can not hear 31 bits (186dB dynamic range). It is best to have a lot of processing bits. How many, it depends on the number of channels and on the type of processing. Regarding the rate: One has to make a distinction between the audio sample rate and the rate of a localized process: The audio sample rate is the rate that carries the music data itself. Roughly speaking, the audio bandwidth itself is slightly less then half the sample rate. A 44.1KHz CD can contains music to about 20KHz. At the same time, there are many cases when we use much higher “localized rates”. Such higher rates do not increase the musical content. The higher rates still offer the same original bandwidth of the sample rate. We up sample or down sample between localized rates for various technical reasons. For example, virtually all modern DA’s operate at 64-1024 times the sample rate speeds (in the many MHz range). Operating at such high rates simplifies the requirements of the anti imaging filter (an analog filter located after the DA conversion). The decision about the ideal localized rate depends on the technology and the task at hand. It is an engineering decision, not an ear based decision. As always a poor implementation may introduce Sonics, and it would be wise to refrain from the often encountered practice of far reaching false generalizations, so common in the audio community. When CD came on horizon nobody talked about jitter. Now days everyone is having his own philosophy around it. Can you elaborate on this subject please. What is the real importance and how to approach this? Jitter is not only an audio issue. I was dealing with jitter issues in medical conversion, way before the days of digital audio. Jitter is an issue for all conversion (video, instrumentation, telecom, medical, industrial controls…). The concept of conversion is based on two requirements: “Taking precise snap shots” Taking the snap shots at evenly spaced intervals, and playing them back at the same evenly spaced intervals. Think of a movie camera with an “unsteady motor”, or a playback film projector with a motor that rattles between too slow and too fast. Either case will distort the outcome, and the distortion depends on both the jitter (speed variations), and on the subject itself. Jitter would not do much harm to a steady object, but it does alter the view of a fast moving object. Similarly, in audio, the distortions due to uneven timing (jitter) is due to the interaction between the clock imperfection and the audio itself. Unlike tube, transformer or many other distortions, the outcome due to jitter is NOT predictable or repeatable. There is no such thing as “good sounding jitter”. There are many types and causes of jitters. What we hear is not only about the jitter amplitude and frequency. It is also about jitter type. Conversion jitter may alter the sound significantly. At the same time, transferring data (that was already converted) between say AD and a computer, or between other digital sources and digital destinations, does not call for great jitter performance. It is only during the conversion process that jitter needs to be very low. Data transfer jitter is not much of an issue, when you are only moving ones and zeros. http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/06/interview-with-dan-lavry-of-lavry.html audiobomber, AmosM, NOMBEDES and 6 others 6 3 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted July 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, Kimo said: I don't think the system is going to be the answer. More likely: 1. Some people still like 16/44, even though they can hear a difference with high resolution 2. Some people can't hear a difference, even though it is there. 3. Some people don't want to hear a difference. I keep looking for quotes from audio engineers telling us that 16/44 is transparent to the source. I haven't had much luck with that. Maybe 18 or 20, or not at all, is what I find. 4. Some people want to hear a difference and their desire makes it impossible to know whether or not it's really there. 5. Some people hear a difference and attribute it to bit-depth even though there's no clear evidence that the bit-depth is the source of whatever difference they're hearing. JoshT, Jay Tee, eternaloptimist and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts