24/96 vs 24/192

Why didn't you make that observation from the very first response which compared Redbook to 24/192?
Ah…the notorious “answer a question with a question” dodge. Sorry, but I do not share your interest in further cluttering this thread with unproductive and frivolous debate tactics.

[sigh] At least we now know that it was indeed asking too much from you to keep your focus on topic.
 
It doesn't take a genius to hear the separation of instruments, does it? If you have to focus that hard for that long to hear a difference (which I don't believe is there), then you've totally forgotten how to enjoy music. It's apparent to me that some people will spend their entire life chasing something that isn't there.
Now you have broached another subject entirely. Stating that chasing after the best quality means that one doesn't enjoy music is where many will justify less SQ. It may or may not be so but it is not the subject of this thread. BTW, I suspect it isn't so much about perfect hearing, but better listening ability. If someone is texting on the phone, typing on a forum, getting bitched at by a wife (or husband) or any other of the multitude of distractions, then you are nowhere near critically "hearing" the music, even with perfect hearing!
 
(...) I ended up buying a used Kenwood DV-403 which is a very nice player but unfortunately will not play CDR's. Should have looked that up first. (...)

Yup, you probably should have - but to be honest, I might have forgotten to just as well...

On that topic, what often appears pretty ironic to me is that many, if not most of the earlier CD players from the times, before CD burners became common or even before CD-Rs existed, have absolutely no problem to play these - and then the drives suddenly became more picky. Just contrary to what one would usually expect...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
>>>>On that topic, what often appears pretty ironic to me is that many, if not most of the earlier CD players from the times, before CD burners became common or even before CD-Rs existed, have absolutely no problem to play these - and then the drives suddenly became more picky. Just contrary to what one would usually expect...<<<<

Absolutely true! The best player I had (as far as accepting anything) was an original 1980s Sony Discman with am/fm/tv radio from Japan. Gave up the ghost a few years ago, but basically would play anything. Next would be a cheap $20 portable. Those were both before my current Numarks, which also play just about anything. But a fairly expensive Marantz I had (6-disc), a 100 disc player (forget the brand), and several computer drives were very, very finicky. It seems late 90's through mid-2000s were when the machines became "too smart for their own good."

GJ

I just experienced that today. My 1989 Kenwood CD Player will play burned CD not a problem though if more than 12 songs it starts to have problems reading so you just keep the burns 12 songs or less. But as I said previously the 1999 Kenwood DVD/CD player cannot play CDR's. That's just plain messed up.
 
Absolutely true! The best player I had (as far as accepting anything) was an original 1980s Sony Discman with am/fm/tv radio from Japan. Gave up the ghost a few years ago, but basically would play anything. Next would be a cheap $20 portable. Those were both before my current Numarks, which also play just about anything. But a fairly expensive Marantz I had (6-disc), a 100 disc player (forget the brand), and several computer drives were very, very finicky. It seems late 90's through mid-2000s were when the machines became "too smart for their own good."

GJ

I've read it somewhere on here that the 1st generation Sony Playstation was / is a very dependable player for pretty much anything. Apparently they designed it so that it could read disks that us kids abused and used as frisbees. The Playstation will play just about any cd you throw into it afaik.
 
I've read it somewhere on here that the 1st generation Sony Playstation was / is a very dependable player for pretty much anything.
That's an urban legend. The DAC in that PS1 is a horrendous first generation delta-sigma, quickly replaced by manufacturers because of the issues they discovered.
I just experienced that today. My 1989 Kenwood CD Player will play burned CD not a problem though if more than 12 songs it starts to have problems reading so you just keep the burns 12 songs or less. But as I said previously the 1999 Kenwood DVD/CD player cannot play CDR's. That's just plain messed up.
The grease on the rails is dry and it cannot go past a certain point (starts from the interior towards out).
 
That's an urban legend. The DAC in that PS1 is a horrendous first generation delta-sigma, quickly replaced by manufacturers because of the issues they discovered.

The grease on the rails is dry and it cannot go past a certain point (starts from the interior towards out).
I'll
I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the tip.
 
That's an urban legend. The DAC in that PS1 is a horrendous first generation delta-sigma, quickly replaced by manufacturers because of the issues they discovered.

This is true. I own two of them, picked up for $5 each. They are the least accurate CD players I've ever heard. My standard demo CD cuts sound very different as compared to how they sound on good quality CD players & DACs. That said, I can understand why some people like them. They roll off highs more than any player I've ever heard. And the bass is warmer and less defined. Sounded something like if you had a DSP mode for Way Over The Top Tube sound.
 
Is there alot of difference in sound quality between a player that has a 24/96 DAC vs a 24/192 Dac?
Bumping the OP in one last chivalrous attempt to poll the AK community in this thread with their own personal experience. It's a simple question.

Please, no more third party links to opposing he said/she said studies, videos, Redbook straw man derailments, etc. There's plenty of that behind us.

If you have in fact compared 24/96 tracks to 24/192 tracks, tell us if YOU personally have experienced a difference. Is it possible we can now get some simple answers?

:)
 
Some folks hear a difference, others don't, so only you can determine if it matters to you. I played a few hi-rez tracks in my modest system and certainly don't notice any huge difference, if any at all. But others may.

That being said, I built my system for my enjoyment, not others. So find your sweet spot and enjoy the hell out of it, others be damned...
 
I'll try to comment on the subject, hoping I don't bounce away a lot.
Before commenting on a player's resolution, I'l comment on the material first. We have so many examples of badly recorded and mastered music that shows absolutely no stereo image and has a very small dynamic range, that sampling frequency AND bit depth become irrelevant. The same material might sound similar even at 8/22kHz. The poor sound quality of recordings is - IMHO - a much more serious issue to address and one that - funny, right - does have an answer. It's a shame music producers don't start by creating material that "might" benefit from an increased resolution first. Material that might be able to swamp a CD's "meager" 95dB of dynamic range.

Second experience comes from reading books on how to design pre-amplifiers and amplifiers. Douglas Self suggests a 50kHz or so tuned RF (radio frequency) filter should be added to preamplifiers because all circuits exhibit increased distortion at frequencies higher than 20-30kHz and that, combined with inter-modulation and interference from the abundance of IR remotes, cordless phones, cellular phones, bluetooth devices, wireless routers, etc, can affect the performance at the audio range as well as stability. To quote a phrase I read somewhere else, "it is pointless and counter productive to exercise the semiconductors and getting them warmed up osculating at radio frequencies only to affect their linearity in the audio spectrum".

There is one exception in my perspective of high frequency sampling rates. When I record from LP or tape onto the computer, I always record at a high sampling rate (32/192). For a specific reason though. The click removal s/w I am using as well as Audition's hiss removal algorithms seem to work much much better with more samples to work with. If an analogy is excused, it looks like comparing using a machete (16/44) against using a scalpel and magnifying glasses (32/192). Takes more time to cut pieces away but the precision of the cut is much better. Of course, audio is down sampled back to 16/44 once the processing is done, and sounds terrific.
 
There is one exception in my perspective of high frequency sampling rates. When I record from LP or tape onto the computer, I always record at a high sampling rate (32/192). For a specific reason though. The click removal s/w I am using as well as Audition's hiss removal algorithms seem to work much much better with more samples to work with. If an analogy is excused, it looks like comparing using a machete (16/44) against using a scalpel and magnifying glasses (32/192). Takes more time to cut pieces away but the precision of the cut is much better. Of course, audio is down sampled back to 16/44 once the processing is done, and sounds terrific.

Thanks for this tip. What are you using for pop/click removal?
 
This is true. I own two of them, picked up for $5 each. They are the least accurate CD players I've ever heard. My standard demo CD cuts sound very different as compared to how they sound on good quality CD players & DACs. That said, I can understand why some people like them. They roll off highs more than any player I've ever heard. And the bass is warmer and less defined. Sounded something like if you had a DSP mode for Way Over The Top Tube sound.
I believe 6Moons or someone did a review of one, and they indeed found a slight but clearly measurable (and no doubt audible) high-end roll-off.

EDIT: Here's the Stereophile review. Measurements show frequency response shockingly un-flat for a CD player, and listening impressions talk about rolled-of treble.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-playstation-1-cd-player-measurements#jYqUDxDU2VMwo95e.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-playstation-1-cd-player-page-2#gz4M4bH17I3b5QCL.97
 
Thanks for the link. I find it astounding that Art Dudley liked how the PS1 sounded. To me, that totally discredits him as a trustworthy reviewer of audio equipment. Well, perhaps not because he liked it, but that he didn't point out how it changes the music so much. In my system, and when listening to my favorite demo songs, which I have used to evaluate probably 50 or more pieces of audio gear, I was shocked at how different these songs sounded vis a vis every other piece of gear I have ever listened to. How some instruments faded into the background, voices came forward, the bass was warmer, the soundstage was dramatically altered.

This was true for both PS1s and when inserted into my primary system with the same preamp, amp, and speakers which I have used to compare 12 to 15 other CD players and DACs.

I can understand someone liking this effect. Many people complain about how CDs sound harsh, bright, and/or lean. The PS1 certainly takes care of those issues.

I appreciate how the Stereophile measurements capture the high noise floor and how the player really has only 14 bits of resolution. Perhaps this is a factor in how I perceived it's imaging to be inferior.
 
Art Dudley isn't a big fan of digital (or at least prefers analog in all cases), so it might not be surprising that he enjoys a CD player that has a sort of non-traditional, non-HiFi sound to it.

As to this discrediting him, he tends to review low power tube gear, vintage-style analog products (heavy tonearms, idler wheels, pickup heads, etc), and high efficiency speakers. If this isn't your wheelhouse, I can't see one having much use for what he writes about one way or the other. If I found myself in the market for a ultra-detailed DAC, I don't think I'd solicit his opinion. When I was shopping for a 12" tonearm, on the other hand, I read every word he had to say on the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom