24-bit/192kHz is pointless?

[tfarney]

I'll take a 128kbps file of one of the notoriously bad (by today's standards) stereo mixes of The Beatles, played by an iPod through bog-standard ear buds over the latest pop tart on a million dollar reference system. All day. Any day. If I ever get to the point where I'm picking the music I listen to because it makes my gear sound good, I'll sentence myself to cassettes on a bad boom box until my mind is cleared.

 

Tim

 

[Mallette]

http://www.korg.com/mr/Future_Proof_Recording_Explained.pdf

OK, it is propaganda, but please remember that propaganda does not equal untruth. Very good explanation of DSD and the first explanation of why it transcodes so transparently to any PCM level. I had experienced that and intuited the reason as likely to be as they explain, but this is the first time I've read a technical paper on it.

 

Based on my experience, I'd already settled on DSD as my basic format and for exactly the reasons given in this paper.

 

Dave

 

[Mallette]

Ash, I am totally in agreement. I have over 400 78rpm records and an Empire 598 Mk II with a 6.5 mil spherical stylus at 5 grams to play them I also have a switch in line to sum the channels for best phase cancellation and a non-RIAA (though switchable) phono preamp. I cannot begin to describe the thrill of turning back the clock 80 years or more and having Kid Ory right in the room playing "Muskrat Ramble" as though there is no tomorrow, and I cannot help but look askance a any "audiophile" who says "but it's MONO, and there is NOISE." Crikey, there's NOISE in a concert hall!

Audiophile just means "love of sound" to me and a desire to hear the best of everything the best it can be.

I have a few CD's of early recordings. They all STINK! It appears that all they do is play them on whatever is handy and digitize. As a kid, I thought all silent movies had people running around in the about 25% fast because that's how it was back then. I was in my twenties before I found that these transcriptions for TV were made on modern, 24fps projectors and should have been run at the original 18fps or less rate. Same with old records. People either hear them on an old gramophone or played back with a .7 mil elliptical stylus. Of course they sound awful!

 

My wife and I share a favorite. It's an acoustic RCA recording of "Rhapsody in Blue" with George Gershwin at the piano and the Paul Whiteman band. When the baritone sax comes in it's downright spooky. Over 80 years old and it sounds like it's right in front of you.

 

It's about the MUSIC!

 

BTW, I have a copy of that Kid Ory at 24/88.2 for download at www.mbsdar.com made on the above referenced equipment.

Dave

 

[Mallette]

http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/2008/Korg-MR-2000S.html

I contacted Korg about syncing two of their units for 4 channel surround and they responded that this unit would sync with another for that purpose.

 

Given there are some pretty good technical minds here, why can't one sync files made at the same time in the same format via software? Seems timing info would be inherent.

 

Is it just that no one has written the software for this purpose or is there something I don't understand?

 

Dave

 

[iansen]

Ashley,

 

I am having difficulties in understanding your reference to vinyl as 8bit. My understanding is that vinyl, if anything, is continuous information, rather than discrete bits.

 

Two analogies:

 

If I see a dog running on the street and I watch a filmed, running dog on a cinema screen then the cinema dog is viewed at 24 frames per second, while the dog in real life is a continuous image (limited, I suppose, by the amount of information per second that can be registered by my brain via my optic nerve).

 

If I draw a line on a piece of paper and I draw a line on a computer screen: the line on the computer monitor can be expresses as DPI (dots per inch) whereas the ink of the line on the paper is continuous (limited I suppose by the number of ink molecules that are physically laying on the paper molecules).

 

So, as vinyl replay consists of a needle “continuously” and physically travelling along a vinyl groove how is it that you refer to the sound as 8 Bit?

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

Firstly let me say that I have and enjoy recordings that have been restored and digitised, some date back to the early nineteen hundreds. Sometimes the music is wonderful.

 

However I don't have a turntable and I don't want one, I never liked them despite spending a fortune on cartridges and fancy decks, the most expensive of which was £10,000 to £15,000 worth. To my ears it was as irritating as a simple Thorens or an SL1210. I assume the reason I don't like them is that they have 1% hum noise, if the vertical tracking angle set accurately the result is a dire -30dB distortion, they have poor channel separation and phase effects if the record is stereo, they mistrack irritatingly and I could go on all night. By modern standards they are poor performers and there's no reason to discuss them on CA IMO.

 

I respect other's love of them and their wish to persevere with them, but I blame certain manufacturers, whose amplifiers didn't cope with digital recordings, for the fact that people still have them and talk about them as though they somehow compete with CD. They don't they are foul by comparison and it's high time we consigned them to the history books, other than for music historians to play what isn't available in a better format!

 

8 bit refers to the 40dB dynamic range and it's my understanding that Nyquist's theory works with as little as two samples. I'm not an engineer and don't have one here for clarification, but don't need one, it's a no brainer. In my book a 128K MP3 sounds better than an LP version of the same track and I've done numerous dems to prove it.

 

I'm very sorry for the tirade, but this obsession with turntable is one reason why people are deserting hi fi. I spoke to a very successful retailer the other day and he said the same thing. In his words, CD is a million times better and everybody thinks that except a lot of old timewarp audiophiles. However he does sell, for £100 a time, a turntable with a USB plug on the end of its lead and a CD so that people can import their old records to a computer.

 

By all means let's talk about importing records to computers, but please, please, please, let's not start the records versus CD debate. There is no more tedious exchange possible, it's on a par with whether or not the earth is round!

 

Now I'll try and find Vallium and a counsellor to help me recover. I'm too old for this!!

 

Ash xx

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Ashley -

 

"Firstly let me say that I have and enjoy recordings that have been restored and digitised, some date back to the early nineteen hundreds."

 

When you purchased these albums back in the early nineteen hundreds ... oh wait a minute ..... :-)

 

Only kidding of course. I couldn't let you off a mini-rant without some flack.

 

[mpmct]

Now I'll try and find Vallium and a counsellor to help me recover. I'm too old for this!!

 

Your vents are refreshing and enlightening -- please don't curtail! :-)

 

 

[tfarney]

You shouldn't need a counselor and a Valium, Ashley. A spot of good whiskey and a well-mastered CD should do the trick. I agree. "I agree" is actually a gross understatement. I may have to print this out and put it up on my wall:

 

"they (turntables) have 1% hum noise, if the vertical tracking angle is set accurately the result is a dire -30dB distortion, they have poor channel separation and phase effects if the record is stereo, they mistrack irritatingly and I could go on all night. By modern standards they are poor performers..."

 

I might have to add notes about the surface noise that is present in even the most pristine examples, inner groove distortion and RIAA curve coloration. You are a heretic, my friend. My kind of heretic. Next up...valves.

 

Tim

 

[BobH]

Wow!

 

Well, it's back down the bunker and batten down the hatches for me Did anyone mention a 2w SET amplifier?

 

Ashley, one of these fine days I'm going to turn up at 'Chez James' emporium and we can go and have a pint and a couple of hours of audio fisticuffs!

 

I think we probably have opposing views, on how to achieve the same end, on just about everything! But I have to say I admire your conviction, sir. Wonderful stuff!! Now, where's that VTA gauge.........

 

[audiozorro]

Phono systems and tubes (valves) can create superior illusions, both in sound and sight. Are we human beings or are we robots? Do we prefer our music systems to sound very analog or very digital? If we start in analog (real instruments and vocals) and end in analog (hearing) why should the very best digital ever be superior to the best analog? If you want more entertainment, read on for more... http://www.decware.com/paper20.htm.

 

[Ashley James]

Horns, Valves, Turntable and daft tweaks are fine by me if people accept them for what they are; History and no more. However I like people I enjoy their company and I'd never wish to offend, so thank you for your indulgence Bob, you'd be welcome any time as would Tim be too. It's a pity we're all so far apart.

 

PS. We've got a VTA gauge and will happily do the job if it helps!

 

Ash

 

I'd missed Audiozorro's comments when I replied so here's an add-on.

 

Valves and Vinyl have a great deal more measured distortion of the types that irritate, so not only do they alter the character of the sound that's been recorded more than later and better technology does, but they do it by a considerable margin. I think the best explanation for your perception is that "they've been the best you've heard thus far"

 

[BobH]

Ashley....LOL! I shall ponder on whether or not I'm ripe for conversion to the wonderful world of 9.1s! (Or more correctly, perhaps, on whether or not my audiophile convictions could stand to be shattered!)

 

audiozorro - neat link because funnily enough I run the anniversary edition of the audio heaven that is the Decware Select Zen Triode Amplifier model SE84ZS - 2 watts of pure pleasure!

 

(Just to stick this post back in order)

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"(Just to stick this post back in order)"

 

This thread is really into extra innings now. In fact it came back from the dead!

 

[shenzi]

To take the conversation away from vinyl, the following article from The Audio Critic may be of interest. CD sounds the same as higher resolution formats ...

 

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

 

[mpmct]

I do think the 'sight' part is big.

And I would throw in the 'touch' part too.

 

I like tubes because they glow like candles or holiday lights,

and that they fade up and fade away so gently. They are very sexy. And they remind me always of my grandmother's first 'hi-fi', circa 1960 -- an oversized maple thing, with a turntable accessed from above, and tubes glowing ever so gently from behind sheer beige fabric on the front.

I loved that thing. It even *smelled* right. And those old Nat King Cole LPs! I don't have tubes, and am not interested, but I would actually like a few of them on a shelf, with an on-off switch, just to regard sometimes.

 

I liked vinyl because it was always fun to watch the center sticker-thing spin, particularly the Apple Corps image. I also liked vinyl because 20 albums really felt like I got my money's worth, when I had to move them. And the properly good-sized album cover art -- sometimes worth the price all by itself. I could really *see* the Beatles, man. ;-)

 

Not that we shouldn't do our best to try to separate sight from sound, but it might be more difficult than we think, as a lot of ABX testing suggests, and as Ashley and others have too. I don't know. But the $4000 balanced interconnects pair that I had on loan, were absolutely sexier looking than they were sounding, in a shade of violet to die for, and so impossibly supple and fun to handle. Didn't influence the sound I heard from them, one bit. Maybe. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

Shenzi - I'd say that article was correct and it's not difficult to see why. CD far exceeds the bandwidth that we can hear, it's dynamic range is over 100 dB of which even the most extreme recordings rarely ever use more than 45 dB and the same goes for distortion, it's far lower than we can hear.

 

Analogue tape recorders were a lot worse and yet they can produce recordings that are almost indistinguishable from CDs too. Record producers never like vinyl though.

 

The real benefit of 24 Bit recordings and higher resolution is in the process of making and producing music because Bits get lost in the process, therefore if you start with more, you'll finish with more and that might well make a difference.

 

Ash

 

[PeterSt]

and the same goes for distortion, it's far lower than we can hear

 

Ah, so that is why all digital sources sound 100% the same. Or ?

 

Hmm ...

 

:-))

Peter

 

[Cavaille]

First let me say this: I always loved digital audio. Listen to orchestral music over vinyl. Just horrible. All is smeared, fake precision, unstable spatiality... I can´t stand it - even with my proper configured turntable. However, some pop or rock albums are sounding better over vinyl. Why? Well, mostly because vinyl colours the sound. If you are aware of the fact that vinyl does that, it´s ok. Sometimes I buy it exactly for that reason - but never for a reason like "vinyl generally is superior". That said, I seldomly use my turntable. The vinyls I´m interested were transferred in 24/96 onto my PC.

 

Why the hell are we talking about an obsolete format that was for the mass market what the CD is today? Interesting, Vinyl got promoted from a mass market medium to an audiophile medium.

 

Yes, I further believe in 24/96 and more. I always did and always will be. I say "believe" because that´s what this is all about, isn´t it? At first it all was falling-for-a-marketing-gag-from-Creative, you know, the manufacturer of interfaces - or better put: gamer soundcards. But then I discovered real 24/96 recordings and improved my way of upsampling with better resamplers. Now I have a professional sound interface and I can enjoy wonderful sound.

 

Differences between 16/44.1 & 24/96? They exist. Now it gets corny but my impression is, that with 16/44.1 the room holding the individual microphones together is missing. Also there is a certain "sweetness" and resolution of high frequencies with HighDef material that I don´t have with 16/44.1 - instead I have something best to describe as more "grain". However one thing is better with 16/44.1: timing. It sounds faster although it isn´t.

 

[audioAl]

Hello: Since I discovered PC audio, built a Custom HTPC, and continue to Tweek It! I am very happy with the PC's ability to improve sonics and clarity of recordings that were OK at best on my Sony A/V receiver. I was certified as an electronic's tech in 1987 at a vocational school. Built an AM radio. I never saw this HTPC stuff comming, but I'm glad it's here,Cheers!

 

[tfarney]

I probably shouldn't have thrown tubes (valves) into the conversation. Really well-done tube amps are nearly impossible to distinguish from their solid state bretheren. "Tubey" tube amps, with a bit of "warmth" can actually make bad material more pleasant to listen to, though it's an awfully expensive way to EQ. But given an excellent recording and mastering, I believe good SS measures better and sounds at least as good. You can't warm your hands on it, though.

 

Personally, I think the future is digital amplification.

 

Vinyl is a romantic fantasy, and beyond the fitful, tweaky, high-maintenance love affair with the physical media and it's Rube Goldberg playback hardware, it is inferior in every way to a good redbook cd. If you love your table, the big art, the spinning disk, the nights spent tweaking, the days looking for a cartridge more expensive than my DAC that will never rise to the resolution of my mid-90s Yamaha cdp (gathering dust beneath my desk), good for you. Ever considered collecting Hummels? If you love the sound of vinyl, good for you to. But that means you love the sound of the many distortions inherent in an antiquated and inferior platform, not the most faithful representation of the source material.

 

And that's cool too. Enjoy. Just understand that if you insist that vinyl is superior, I will insist that you are a bit delusional.

 

Tim

 

[Purite Audio]

Sounds like you have never heard a decent turntable Tim.

 

[tfarney]

Perhaps. I've heard some very expensive ones. I was weaned on a Thorens with very good, for their day, cartridges. I was an audio geek long before the advent of digital. But I've never heard a turntable that mitigates surface noise (I'm not talking about pops and clicks, but the noise present the moment the needle touches vinyl at volume), inner groove distortion, RIAA eq, etc, etc. I'm not saying that records can't sound good. They can. What they can't do is produce the dynamic range, FR extension, low (like almost non-existent) noise floor and separation of digital. It really doesn't matter how good, or how well-tweaked the table is, the media is not capable. That doesn't mean you shouldn't like the sound of your vinyl. What it means is that your vinyl is not more accurate, a more transparent representation of what is in the recording. It's simply, demonstrably not. If you prefer vinyl, you prefer the sound of that medium's colorations to the actual sound of your recordings. Not, as Seinfeld would say, that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Tim

 

[Purite Audio]

Tim Hi, I like vinyl and cd, what I really like is a good recording , I am not too bothered what the media is, I find cd and vinyl to be remarkably similar, vinyl is a little noisier you are right, but it can have a palpability that is beguiling, probably just 2nd order distortion I realise but I still like it, I am hoping that hi-res digital will combine the best of both, very best Keith.

 

[tfarney]

I'm with you on that, Keith. I particularly love a great live recording. I spent many hours wearing out more than one vinyl copy of Van Morrison's "Too Late To Stop Now" as an example. That recording is a bit light in the bass, but otherwise pretty exemplary for it's time, or today, for that matter. God, I loved that album on vinyl! I'm not sure it's really any better on cd, even without the surface noise. In fact, I'd bet the vinyl is a better listen than any re-master (I actually don't know if this one has been re-mastered...) would be. I'm fortunate enough to have an early, unboogered (the actual technical term) cd from the early days of the medium when they simply rolled tape into an analog to digital converter. These older cds almost invariably turned out much better than latter-day versions in which record company executives collaborated with mastering engineers of dubious professional ethics to make that old stuff "more exciting"...ie, loud, compressed and boosted at the extremes like a cheap 70s "loudness" circuit.

 

Yes, sir. The quality of the recording is the thing at one end. At the other end are the transducers. In the middle, we sweat the small stuff. We're Audiophools. It's what we do.

 

Tim