Are we just kidding ourselves?

[kumakuma]

What I've found so far (don't know if these are accessible to you):

 

Search results for 'joy division' | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

Search results for 'depeche mode' | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

Search results for 'von karajan' | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

Vinyl Records, SACDs, DVD Audio, Audiophile Equipment | Acoustic Sounds

 

Edit: Anathema's latest in hi res (the deluxe edition) - https://www.burningshed.com/store/kscope/collection/5/

 

This site is a good place for locating HD music:

 

Find HD music | Search for High Definition Music Downloads | High Resolution Audio

[esldude]

Test signals are easier to reconstruct unlike complex musical waveforms. I've seen the entire video before and he proved nothing whosoever! His red X over the truth is unacceptable as he used a square wave which has predictable movement compared to actual complex musical waveforms. You've been brainwashed, Monty Montgomery is out to discredit high-end audio and high resolution music. Monty Montgomery is creator of the lossy Vorbis format. Try to understand why people like this tell untruths and misuse test equipment to support their boneheaded conclusions, his is against the interests of all music lovers and audiophiles.

 

to quote a sig line I have seen elsewhere:

 

In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

[kumakuma]

to quote a sig line I have seen elsewhere:

 

In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

 

+1

[sandyk]

to quote a sig line I have seen elsewhere:

 

In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

 

Whose facts ? Yours, Archimago,Mayhem13's , or the REAL facts ?

[wgscott]

You forgot the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Queen of England and the Worldwide Banking Conspiracy.

[Don Hills]

... I've seen the entire video before and he proved nothing whosoever! ...

 

Copernicus, Galileo, Shannon and Nyquist were right. So is Monty's video. The only part of it that is even remotely debatable is his opinions on when dither should be used. The "red X" part you object most strongly to is exactly correct, mathematically proven by Shannon and Nyquist et al. Their proof works the same for square waves and complex musical waveforms.

[Fokus]

that you didn't answer: What are the characteristics or parameters most important to the performance of the ADC and DAC filters that are audibly among the best?

 

As I have not conducted extensive listening tests with experienced panels and a wide range of music I can only offer an opinion. IMO opinions on forums are worthless, as a well-founded opinion appears to get the same status as a crackpot opinion, or less. So I won't answer the question. And even if I did it would be pointless, as it would imply that the recording and replay industries would standardise something.

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, to all here, can we please drop that Nyquist fellow and give Shannon his proper due?

[sandyk]

BTW, to all here, can we please drop that Nyquist fellow and give Shannon his proper due?

 

Better still, drop them both and use your ears ! If your ears consistently tell you that 24/192 and DSD sounds markedly more open ,and better overall than RB CD under non sighted conditions, then trust them !

[Fokus]

(1) Are there transients that effectively have a "frequency" (in quotes because we could be talking about aperiodic events)

 

No need for the clumsy quotes if you state it as

 

"are there transient signals in music with a spectrum or bandwidth exceeding 20kHz..."

 

But then you'd run into trouble again:

 

above 22.05kHz that we can nevertheless hear?

 

If it is transient, then it has considerable signal below 20kHz, which we can readily hear.

 

Can you hear a 1 ns wide impulse?

 

I can.

 

Do I have MHz super ears?

 

No.

 

I am virtually certain Fokus would say no, but I still don't know enough to come to a conclusion on this for myself.

 

Isn't the question: does a bandwidth of over 20kHz matter, yes or no.

 

The status over the past century has been something like: for the vast majority of healthy adults it does not seem to matter. No research in the past years has convincingly attacked this position.

 

(2) Are the effects of ultrasonic filter ringing audible? Again I am virtually certain Fokus would say no, but there are others who appear to me to be saying yes (Miska, Charles Hansen, John Swenson, PeterSt, among others)

 

And what do these gentlemen all have in common? And who are they preaching to?

 

 

 

resulting sound? I know next to nothing (I suppose not even "next to" - I know nothing)

 

You should give yourself more credit.

[Fokus]

If we wanted 5 microseconds between samples, the shortest level change humans can hear then wouldn't we would need a 250kHz sampling frequency?

 

Gibson is talking about the smallest inter-aural delay the auditory system can detect and use in the localisation of sound. That is the delay between sound arriving to the left versus right ear.

 

CD can support such delays, and far far lower ones, despite its sample period being 20-odd microseconds. That is a fact of math, and a lot of daily-working technology, outside of audio and in fields more important than audio, is built on this.

 

 

Incidentally, we have a class of faster-than-normal neurons involved in this. Quite unusual.

[Jud]

No need for the clumsy quotes if you state it as

 

"are there transient signals in music with a spectrum or bandwidth exceeding 20kHz..."

 

But then you'd run into trouble again:

 

If it is transient, then it has considerable signal below 20kHz, which we can readily hear.

 

Can you hear a 1 ns wide impulse?

 

I can.

 

Do I have MHz super ears?

 

No.

 

Isn't the question: does a bandwidth of over 20kHz matter, yes or no.

 

The status over the past century has been something like: for the vast majority of healthy adults it does not seem to matter. No research in the past years has convincingly attacked this position.

 

So if I understand what you are saying correctly, even though the "highest frequency of interest" is half or more the sample rate for some frequencies contained in the transient/impulse, as long as we keep audible aliases out and any ringing is in the ultrasonic region we are OK.

 

And what do these gentlemen all have in common? And who are they preaching to?

 

 

I don't see a lot of evidence for what I take as the implication. For example, Charles Hansen has railed against DSD long and loud in this and other forums even as the company of which he is the principal offers to enable DSD playback in older models of its DAC for $750. In other words he does not have a problem speaking up about what he thinks even when it runs counter to his financial interest. So when Charles says it's a good thing that his DAC's (PCM) filtering minimizes pre-ringing, I take it that he sincerely believes this. Whether he is correct is another matter, on which, as I said, I don't have the knowledge to draw a conclusion for myself at this point.

 

You should give yourself more credit.

No real usefulness in that. Much better IMO to look at things from the point of view of how much I don't know, so that I am motivated to learn more.

[Jud]

As I have not conducted extensive listening tests with experienced panels and a wide range of music I can only offer an opinion. IMO opinions on forums are worthless, as a well-founded opinion appears to get the same status as a crackpot opinion, or less. So I won't answer the question. And even if I did it would be pointless, as it would imply that the recording and replay industries would standardise something.

 

BTW, to all here, can we please drop that Nyquist fellow and give Shannon his proper due?

 

And what about Whittaker? Re forums and opinions, I think there are more and less useful ones (both forums and opinions). I thought it might be a chance to gain some helpful information, unless you count yourself among the crackpots! But of course we will leave it as you prefer.

[Jud]

So to move off of the unending debate/debacle about impulses, ringing, etc., and back a little more squarely to the original question of whether hi res is worthwhile: To get music from a digital file, and to convert music into a digital file in the first place, filtering is used. I think there is a fairly broad consensus that there is audibly better and worse filtering. Given this, using the highest quality filters possible would be a logical goal. To the extent that the filtering done at the studio/vendor may be audibly better than the filtering done by the chip inside your DAC, or to the extent that hi res removes the necessity for filtering inside your DAC, this would seem to be a helpful thing for the resulting quality of the sound you hear.

[mayhem13]

Better still, drop them both and use your ears ! If your ears consistently tell you that 24/192 and DSD sounds markedly more open ,and better overall than RB CD under non sighted conditions, then trust them !

 

Let's just kick rationality and reason to the curb too Alex.....Science?.....Mathematics? we don't need no education as Mr. Waters puts it! Our ears will progress us through the future just fine.

[mayhem13]

So to move off of the unending debate/debacle about impulses, ringing, etc., and back a little more squarely to the original question of whether hi res is worthwhile: To get music from a digital file, and to convert music into a digital file in the first place, filtering is used. I think there is a fairly broad consensus that there is audibly better and worse filtering. Given this, using the highest quality filters possible would be a logical goal. To the extent that the filtering done at the studio/vendor may be audibly better than the filtering done by the chip inside your DAC, or to the extent that hi res removes the necessity for filtering inside your DAC, this would seem to be a helpful thing for the resulting quality of the sound you hear.

 

Impulse or step response, ringing are still part of the filtering debate and not mutually exclusive. So in theory....or a nutshell.......if multiple filtering stages produce poorer impulse response at the trailing edge of each sample then yes.....less filtering is beneficial to the final product. I believe the problem that I and some others have with this is it simply isn't audible under the best of conditions or through the current state of reproduction equipment.

 

I'm going to ask you a simple question of a genuine concern as my motives for posting here on CA are I believe quite different from yours. What is it with the current state of reproduced audio that you find lacking or in need of improvement? I'm hoping you don't reply with the live vs memorex spiel!

[sandyk]

Let's just kick rationality and reason to the curb too Alex.....Science?.....Mathematics? we don't need no education as Mr. Waters puts it! Our ears will progress us through the future just fine.

 

If your ears consistently tell you that 24/192 and DSD sounds markedly more open ,and better overall than RB CD under non sighted conditions, then there is a bloody difference , and to hell with Shannon and Nyquist, because they are obviously not taking into account the complete picture as to regards human hearing capabilities.

 

Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[Jud]

Impulse or step response, ringing are still part of the filtering debate and not mutually exclusive. So in theory....or a nutshell.......if multiple filtering stages produce poorer impulse response at the trailing edge of each sample then yes.....less filtering is beneficial to the final product. I believe the problem that I and some others have with this is it simply isn't audible under the best of conditions or through the current state of reproduction equipment.

 

I'm going to ask you a simple question of a genuine concern as my motives for posting here on CA are I believe quite different from yours. What is it with the current state of reproduced audio that you find lacking or in need of improvement? I'm hoping you don't reply with the live vs memorex spiel!

 

No particular problem with the "current state of reproduced audio." Within that current state, I just want to help get better sound for myself by chatting with other folks to see how they've done it and what they think about my ideas. And I'm also very curious about how all this audio stuff works, over and above how it might help me personally. It's worked out really well on both counts. I managed to put together a very nice DAC for cheaper than I could have bought a similar quality manufacturer's box, and got a lovely piece of woodcraft into the bargain. I would never have known how to go about doing this without information I gained from people at this site. And I've learned all sorts of really interesting things about computer audio. I'm sure you would look to save money while getting better sound by building speakers and paying close attention to the listening environment. I recently bought a friend's Vandersteen 3A Signatures, and can't imagine being able to build anything that sounds anything near as good for a price within my budget, so I'm not going to be doing further optimization there. As far as listening environment, I have paid very close attention to optimizing speaker positioning (the Vandersteen manual is very helpful), and I'm fortunate that my listening room is over 30 feet deep to an uneven rear wall (kitchen cabinets, island, appliances, back hallway leading to door to garage) so it's pretty good re resonances for a normal living environment. As my spouse will certainly let you know, I've done all the listening environment optimizing I'm going to do. Love the sound I'm getting - I've never enjoyed the music more, though my wallet is a bit unhappy that I'm buying a lot of it. (Definitely not the type to stick with the same few "audiophile" recordings - love both new music and digging out old stuff that now sounds new.) There too (new music) I've gotten many great suggestions from the folks here. So all in all, I'm really happy with this site and my music, and remain curious to learn more. You?

[firedog]

Acoustic Sounds has some pop-Rock-soul, and more is being added all the time. Nothing really up to date, that's a given. Lots of classical and jazz is available in DSD. If you don't like that, it's probably not for you at this point.

 

The other alternative is ripping from SACD. There are also some nice people at audiocircle.com who have volunteered to rip SACD collections for those who don't want to get an appropriate PS3. You just have to send them your SACDs and an HD. There's LOTS of rock-pop available on SACD.

 

I do not pretend to understand all the techno babble. But isn't the whole yes no discussion rather pointless? There is almost zero DSD or High Resolution material available. I had a look at the two major DSD sites and their content was rather limited in amount and very 1 dimensional in type of music. Some Jazz/blues and some classical.

 

No pop, rock, metal, alternative etc.

 

As long the amount and variation is so extremely limited I doubt very much that high res/DSD will ever take of.

[kennyb123]

If your ears consistently tell you that 24/192 and DSD sounds markedly more open ,and better overall than RB CD under non sighted conditions, then there is a bloody difference , and to hell with Shannon and Nyquist, because they are obviously not taking into account the complete picture as to regards human hearing capabilities.

 

The night before last I loaded into iTunes (via A+) the rip of the SACD of the Stones' "Some Girls". Later in the evening, during my listening session, I reached to my iPad to start playback of this. My initial reaction was "ugh this sounds like a CD" and I wondered if this might have been up-sampled from CD. I reached again for my iPad and noticed that I was actually playing the wrong tracks. I had been inadvertently playing rips from the CD, which I forgot that I had.

 

CD rips have a sonic signature in my system that makes them stand out (and not in a good way) in contrast to DSD and high-res PCM. I'm not sure my DAC is to blame, as this was noticeable with the two previous DACs that I owned - maybe even more so with those DACs. There is definitely something amiss in the world of 16/44.1. If 16/44.1 is theoretically sufficient for capturing music - and I've heard some good arguments in this thread suggesting it is - then I guess the fault must lie with the real world implementation of this - and yet somehow these same problems are largely avoided at higher resolutions.

 

Just my two cents.

[Paul R]

You miss the ever pertinent question -

 

Do frequencies above human hearing affect or effect - in any way - the reproduction of recorded music or the experience of listening to reproduced music?

 

That is neither a crackpot nor unorthodox theory, as the answer is unreservedly yes. The process of reproducing them, filtering them, or even just storing the digital data representing that content affects how it sounds.

 

All this arguing back and forth is stupid, I don't particularly care about sound I cannot hear, but I do care about the effects of those frequencies on the reproduction of sound I can hear.

 

-Paul

 

 

No need for the clumsy quotes if you state it as

 

"are there transient signals in music with a spectrum or bandwidth exceeding 20kHz..."

 

But then you'd run into trouble again:

 

 

 

If it is transient, then it has considerable signal below 20kHz, which we can readily hear.

 

Can you hear a 1 ns wide impulse?

 

I can.

 

Do I have MHz super ears?

 

No.

 

 

 

Isn't the question: does a bandwidth of over 20kHz matter, yes or no.

 

The status over the past century has been something like: for the vast majority of healthy adults it does not seem to matter. No research in the past years has convincingly attacked this position.

 

 

 

And what do these gentlemen all have in common? And who are they preaching to?

 

 

 

 

 

You should give yourself more credit.

[gmgraves]

You forgot the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Queen of England and the Worldwide Banking Conspiracy.

 

 

You forgot the World Zionist Conspiracy. Probably the biggest one!

[gmgraves]

Let's just kick rationality and reason to the curb too Alex.....Science?.....Mathematics? we don't need no education as Mr. Waters puts it! Our ears will progress us through the future just fine.

 

 

Yes, our ears will continue to lie to us about certain things in the future as now, and the gullible will continue to believe those lies and spend small fortunes chasing them. To each his own.

[kennyb123]

Yes, our ears will continue to lie to us about certain things in the future as now, and the gullible will continue to believe those lies and spend small fortunes chasing them. To each his own.

 

Do you have this same level of trust in your other senses?

[Jud]

Do you have this same level of trust in your other senses?

 

Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.

- Edgar Allan Poe

[mayhem13]

You miss the ever pertinent question -

 

Do frequencies above human hearing affect or effect - in any way - the reproduction of recorded music or the experience of listening to reproduced music?

 

That is neither a crackpot nor unorthodox theory, as the answer is unreservedly yes. The process of reproducing them, filtering them, or even just storing the digital data representing that content affects how it sounds.

 

All this arguing back and forth is stupid, I don't particularly care about sound I cannot hear, but I do care about the effects of those frequencies on the reproduction of sound I can hear.

 

-Paul

 

But you can't here the subharminics lower in freq than the fundamental Paul as they're down 40db or more......or less than the common odd order HD at normal listening levels. No crack, no pots, just facts.

 

If you like, I'm working on a new three way design with an exceptional ribbon tweeter that's flat out past 30khz. We can send a simple instrument cymbal crash sample to it that Shirley contains some subharmonics and see where they are in amplitude. If they're down 40db or more, will that be enough to satisfy you?