Digital vs Audio Formats in Music

[E-Stat]

OK. As I see this it has nothing to do with Redbook but digital filters in CDPs and data is from forum posts and manufacturer materials.

It has everything to do with the 44.1 sample rate in the Redbook standard. You must use a severe filter to prevent gross distortion in the audible band. You still get time domain errors.

You do realize very very very very very very little music has been recorded on anything beyond 16/44.1.

You are mistaken. Most of what is recorded is captured at higher resolution. I would agree, however, that the number of high rez releases is comparatively limited - but growing.

What you buy as Hi-Res is upsampled Redbook.

That statement is not supported by fact and is easily dispelled by viewing a spectrum analysis of the recording. It is true, however there are some "so called hi-rez" recordings that barely exceed the bandwidth of 20k.

In recording studios 16/44.1 is considered Hi-Res. ECM, DECCA, DG all are focused around 16/44.1 and their editions sound perfect.

Perfect to you. Not others.

You find sharpness and ringing in 16/44.1?

The audible results are blurring of detail and lack of extension. A cymbal or a bell tree never sounds live.

Do you realize the artifacts that are accompanied with tape and vinyl? And how lower resolution it is than 16 bits?

Sure. As for bit depth, you only get 16 bits at high level. Vinyl and Redbook each have their strengths and weaknesses. I'll repeat what I said in the previous post. I find that hi-rez digital combines the best of both worlds.

I hear no sharpness or ringing on a good CDP playing a well mastered CD. I must not be blessed with the golden ears.

Have you ever heard a CD with high frequency percussive content that sounds identical to a live, unamplified experience? I sure haven't!

 

[Pandovski]

Yes you can buddy, at least in the form of rise time changes as I just mentioned above (Jneutron and Dr. Kunchur). Besides that there are EEG and PET scan measurements demonstrating the ear is affected by greater than 20khz, I mentioned to you before, so you know the facts before your previous post. You cannot pick and choose the science you wish to believe.

I am not getting into the debate over which is best, just correcting some obvious errors.

Cheers.

I'm reading it, its a very good article.

Yes indeed we are affected by frequencies beyond our active hearing, bellow 20Hz and beyond 20kHz.

I just don't find High Frequency at all essential to musical reproduction and audiophile listening. Biologically and musically we live in the midrange. I couldn't care less about splashing cymbals, I actually dislike them. I try to suffocate their splashing tinnitus ringing annoyance to enjoyable and bearable levels.

20kHz + splashing tin in my living room, I don't want it, I don't need it.

 

[E-Stat]

Your revisionist history is wrong. CD-ROM was an outgrowth of the CD-DA (Red Book) standard. The Yellow Book that defines CD-ROM was written by the same group of Philips and Sony engineers and published at the same time as the Red Book.

I stand corrected as to the time line. The relevant capacity limitation of the storage media, however, is correct. You've got 700 MB to work with. Regardless of the color of the standard, the fence remains at that capacity.

II don't hear a "lean or clinical" character in well-recorded Red Book CDs played back through a quality DAC. If your CDs don't sound as good as your LPs, you need a better CD player or DAC, or perhaps better recordings.

Ok. I've heard many a fine player and use a pretty decent Audio Research DAC.

I've also heard higher-resolution digital formats -- both DVD-A and SACD -- played back on a high-end system. They sounded no better to me than well-produced CDs.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Pandovski]

Have you ever heard a CD with high frequency percussive content that sounds identical to a live, unamplified experience? I sure haven't!

 

[hjames]

Again, vague innuendos but no real specifics ...

How about you actually explain SOMETHING all the way through without the cute phrases and clichés -
rather than hinting that the world will end and the thread will dismount if you do ...
Start a new thread with your discourse and folks will come to it, if it has any reality to it ...


A.C.Clarke once said - "Magic is merely technology we don't (yet) understand" -
but you have to actually SAY what you are talking about with more depth than "(nano)Tubes"!

You use terms like "He who holds the gold", "the 411 that is cutting edge", "the powers that be", and other conspiracy-type phrases and cliché - its far too easy to dismiss everything you say as pipe dreams and hashish visions with no substance behind any of it


And drop the cliches - its childish in any kind of real discussion where knowledge is meant to be shared and exchanged...

Otherwise, I'd far rather hear the OP, Botrytis, and Pandovski actually DISCUSSING THINGS than have some newby drop trite phrases with nothing behind it.

if you believe you are privy to new innovations and the powers that be let you in on the 411 that is cutting edge then you are slow to grasp modern living in general. life is a marketing strategy evolving minute by minute.

like the saying goes "he who has the gold ,makes the rules"

look at some of the mark levinson patents for proof that technology is changing,there is a major corporate battle going on right now to break out new tech. the European market is really stepping up to the occasion.

i dont really want to get too deep into this because it detracts from the op's main thread ,but you can continue on your own you might get some good info,it's out there.

 

[Pandovski]

Again, vague innuendos but no real specifics ...

How about you actually explain SOMETHING all the way through without the cute phrases and clichés - rather than hinting that the world will end and the thread will dismount if you do ...

A.C.Clarke once said - "Magic is merely technology we don't (yet) understand" - but you have to actually SAY what you are talking about with more depth than "(nano)Tubes"!

You use terms like "He who holds the gold", "the 411 that is cutting edge", "the powers that be", and other conspiracy-type phrases and cliché - its far too easy to dismiss everything you say as pipe dreams and hashish visions with no substance behind any of it


And drop the cliches - its childish in any kind of real discussion where knowledge is meant to be shared and exchanged...

Otherwise, I'd far rather hear the OP, Botrytis, and Pandovski actually DISCUSSING THINGS than have some newby drop trite phrases with nothing behind it.

Easy there. Lets keep it light and full of puns, no kickboxing. :nono:

Cleon is a new member and I welcome his discussion.

 

[E-Stat]

there-is-no-santa-clause

Nice use of the Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!

 

[hjames]

Easy there. Lets keep it light and full of puns, no kickboxing. :nono:

Okey Dokey ...

 

[Pandovski]

Nice use of the Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!

And a cute baby to boot!

 

[cleonjr]

ok sorry did not mean to hurt any one,i just merely put out my thought. on this since it interests me ,i thought someone else would get something from it instead of me having to prove the validity of it.it is what it is as are my views,no matter how they may seem they are mine.

i know a lot of what i say on AK meets a lot of resistance from the powers that be on AK
that is fine i have no point to prove i am a audio/video type a guy who loves good sound digital or analog or whatever when i was out of country i liked going to the tribal get togethers and listen to the live singing and percussion played..and the only thing really analog is our ears and voice.

it is all relative to our existance

 

[Pandovski]

ok sorry did not mean to hurt any one,i just merely put out my thought. on this since it interests me ,i thought someone else would get something from it instead of me having to prove the validity of it.it is what it is as are my views,no matter how they may seem they are mine.

At any forum these debates are like multiplayer video games online. You got range of weapons to shoot at your opponents. Stickman arguments, demanding proof, facetious meme pictures, irony, sarcasm, character assassination, topical "read this" links, rounded up statistical estimates (from the back of your mind), etc. Of course don't forget the shield - crying out loud you have been insulted, discredited and that mods should intervene... positoron is good at this.

Anyway, back on topic.

My point is Redbook is indeed GOOD ENOUGH for the casual music lover. Mastering and quality of one's hardware play much larger role than the limitations of Redbook.

Can you hear the limitation of Redbook vs 24/96? No.
Can you measure them? Yes.

Only when music is originally recorded > mastered > distributed > reproduced DDDD in 24/96 I may hear a difference on a Hi-End system. I own hi-res files, play them on my 24/96 soundcard. They sound equally good to me as my 16/44.1 files.

Neither is my system Hi-Fi or Hi-End and nor am I a trained listener. So in the real world IMO Redbook has no audible issues.

It is GOOD ENOUGH. :wave:

 

[cleonjr]

oh yea i know i am pretty thick skinned, i sometimes come off differently than i intended,have to do a lot of apologizing LOL, but i like it here on AK so get used to me i aint goin nowere. and this is a great thread about formats of music hats of to the op

 

[E-Stat]

My point is Redbook is indeed GOOD ENOUGH for the casual music lover.

On that I can agree. I'll take it a step further: for the vast majority of the public, compressed 256k content is "good enough". Some say better because everything is "louder". Subtlety and natural dynamic range is not what most folks seek.

Can you hear the limitation of Redbook vs 24/96?

Yes.

Neither is my system Hi-Fi or Hi-End and nor am I a trained listener. So in the real world IMO Redbook has no audible issues.

In your world, Redbook has no audible issues.

 

[nailer]

I think the interview is very educational and speaks for it-self by those who engineer the recording and playback of music.

My intentions in starting this thread was to make other forum members aware of the interview, not to start an argument.

Agree, the interview is informative.

On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :thmbsp:

 

[Pandovski]

In your world, Redbook has no audible issues.

If you used 2 music files, one 16/44 and the other 24/96 that were differently mastered copies and compared them, that is not a valid comparison.

If you used 2 music files, one 16/44 and the other 24/96 from the same mastering copy but it was recorded 16/44 and upsampled to 24/96, then it is not a valid comparison.

If you used 2 music files, one 16/44 and the other 24/96 from the same mastering copy but it was recorded 24/96 and downsampled to 16/44, then it is not a valid comparison.

If you used 2 music files that were made with parallel recording, one for 16/44 and one for 24/96 and were mastered in parallel equally, and you listened to them in parallel using a switch to flip from one to the other, then you have a valid comparison. Is this how you did it?

And BTW people are capable of enjoying music with mp3 because the mind can adapt and compensate up to 80% of hearing loss. 192kbps mp3 is no challenge at all. Just look at what noise, distortion and gibberish HAM operators can understand through.

EDIT: Thank God for Copy Paste.

 

[E-Stat]

If you used 2 music files, one 16/44 and the other 24/96 that were differently mastered copies and compared them, that is not a valid comparison.

We're just not communicating. That canard only goes so far. For those who base their opinion on specs, such makes perfect sense. Those with an experiential basis just smile.

And BTW people are capable of enjoying music with mp3 because the mind can adapt and compensate up to 80% of hearing loss.

The actual reasons are:

1. Most people don't care
2. Most people haven't been exposed to better.

 

[Pandovski]

Here is where music lives and why Redbook is GOOD ENOUGH.

 

[Dr Tinear]

... My point is Redbook is indeed GOOD ENOUGH for the casual music lover. Mastering and quality of one's hardware play much larger role than the limitations of Redbook. ...

I'll go one step further and say that Red Book CD is good enough for the critical listener, not just the casual one. Implicit in this claim is the assumption that the disc production and mastering are done right; no system, analog or digital, can make poorly-produced recordings sound good.

 

[E-Stat]

Here is where music lives and why Redbook is GOOD ENOUGH.

You continue to completely miss the point about the phase and time domain errors rendered by the brick wall filters in the audible region.

How many eleventh order crossovers do you find in speakers today?

 

[Pandovski]

I'll go one step further and say that Red Book CD is good enough for the critical listener...

Nothing is good enough for the critical listener.