Are we just kidding ourselves?

[sandyk]

Hi Anthony

Perhaps Peter is achieving this with the NOS 1A , but I note that he has now also said in a recent thread his own forum

USB cables now matter.

 

Regards

Alex

[acg]

Hi Anthony

Perhaps Peter is achieving this with the NOS 1A , but I note that he has now also said in a recent thread his own forum

 

Regards

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

Yes, I saw that yesterday. Not sure what to make of it, but I do hope that Peter does get in and try to figure out why the USB cable matters again because I quite enjoyed selling my expensive USB cable when I purchased my NOS1 USB. I will test this all for myself when I get my dac upgraded to the current spec.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

[tranz]

I thought MSB's DACs are 24bit or 26bit ones.

 

What about 32 bit DACs

[manisandher]

... I quite enjoyed selling my expensive USB cable when I purchased my NOS1 USB.

 

Hi Anthony, I don't want to take this thread OT, but see my upcoming post about this on the Phasure forum.

 

Mani.

[semente]

I want to believe in high res audio as much as anyone. I want to believe I haven't wasted a fair bit of money at HD Tracks and Linn Records. I believe I've even heard the difference, through a carefully constructed A/B test, between 44.1k/16bit and 96k/24bit files. In the end though, there are a lot of questions I just can't reconcile.

 

First, there is the fact that a great many people don't have amplifiers, preamplifiers, or speakers that will reproduce a signal beyond 20k. There has been some interesting and thoughtful discussion on this point, so maybe this isn't an issue. I’ll let that one go for the moment.

 

Then there's the bit depth. I'm finding it interesting that the s/n ratio on most really good amplifiers is in the 94 - 106db range, which is no where near the 144db required to take full advantage of the s/n of a 24 bit recording. Do amplifiers even exist that have a noise floor that low? If the weakest component in the chain is still too noisy to hear the advantages of the file format, does it make a difference?

 

This is of course setting aside the fact that the best microphones in the world (AKG C12, Telefunken 251, Neumann U47, etc...) are limited to 20k on the high end and have s/n ratios in the 70's (db). Then there is the rest of the signal path (mic preamp, eq, compressor, console, etc...). If any one of these is not up to the capability of the file format, doesn't the idea of calling the end product "high res" fail"?

 

I know there are people who believe that high res is snake oil and that anyone who believes they hear a difference, is fooling themselves. I'd like to hear from the other side though. How given all of these facts, is it still possible for high res audio to provide any benefit at all?

 

To be clear, I am not questioning the value of the format, so much as I'm wondering if the equipment isn't keeping us from ever being able to hear it.

 

I see from another post you made that you are using smallish standmounts.

These will probably start distorting at around 100dB - this will be their dynamic range at 1 metre.

Now subtract 30dB of room noisefloor and another 6dB for doubling the distance if your listening spot distances 2 metres from the speakers and you are down to 64dB of useable dynamic range.

 

Now suppose you listen mostly to pop/rock and the odd jazz track.

After mixing and editing, these recordings hardly ever have a dynamic range that exceeds 36dB/6bit.

 

Do you really need 24bit files or are you just kidding yourself?

 

R

[Panelhead]

I missed a third party measurement that does that high of resolution. But if Peter and MSB are getting resolution to this level, they deserve much attention. The whole package, from input to output has to be extremely well designed, and implemented.

If I had more free time, like pending retirement, the NOS1a would be on my list. Even with the need for a PC and using Winders.

[Jason Breckling]

I think that you are laboring under a few misconceptions. Let me take them one by one:

 

1) "...there is the fact that a great many people don't have amplifiers, preamplifiers, or speakers that will reproduce a signal beyond 20k."

 

Yes, a high sampling rate such as 96 KHz does, indeed, extend the digital frequency response beyond the 22.05 KHz limit of a 44.1 KHz sampling rate system such as CD, but it's real merit is the fact that that a high sample-rate moves the sampling frequency far away from the audio passband. This affords less chance that the sampling frequency will 'beat' with the high-frequency audio content causing a difference frequency with sub-harmonics to be created that will appear as uncorrelated distortion in the audio passband. This is controversial, but nonetheless, most listeners can hear the difference between 44.1KHz and 88.2 or 96 Khz sampling rate material. Since it is doubtful that these people can hear the extra bandwidth as extended frequency response (whether their equipment has the bandwidth or not), there must be something else at work, here.

 

That's kinda what I figured too.

 

2) "...I'm finding it interesting that the s/n ratio on most really good amplifiers is in the 94 - 106db range, which is no where near the 144db required to take full advantage of the s/n of a 24 bit recording."

 

True. Most amps don't have anywhere near the dynamic range to reproduce the entire range available with 24-bit, but again, that's not really the point. With 16-bit, by the time a recording is trying to reproduce an instrument playing at ppp levels, or trying to capture (or reproduce) the hall reverb dying away after the last note, the number of bits in play are often reduced to one or two bits at those low levels. Since a two-bit digital audio system has a signal-to-noise ratio of only 12 dB, the noise and distortion at low levels is almost as loud as the signal one is trying to capture/reproduce. This is why record companies often add a small amount of analog noise to low level signals to keep as many bits "working" at the bottom end of the loudness scale as possible. This "dithering" process lowers the amount of distortion one gets from trying to resolve a very quiet signal (such as hall ambience) with one or two bits working out of the available 16. With 24-bits, dithering is not necessary because the low-level signal resolution goes much lower than any system can resolve without resorting to adding dithering noise. This addresses one of the complaints about 16-bit CD, that it doesn't handle ambience as well as analog did in spite of CD having about 36 dB more dynamic range than did the best LPs or analog tape recorders.

 

You're absolutely right. I don't know why I didn't think about that. I guess I've been out of it for too long.

 

On the recording side of the equation, 24-bit affords more headroom than does 16-bit, making it less likely that the music will over modulate by needing more bits that the system can provide. Believe me, if you've ever had something that you are recording accidentally go into "the red" on a digital recording system, then you know that it's something that you want to avoid at all costs! Analog recording was somewhat tolerant of momentary over modulation, and that tolerance increased with linear tape speed. NO digital system, irrespective of bit depth and sample-rate can tolerate any over modulation. 24 or 32-bit recording allows the recordist to maintain a lower average level, staying well away from the dread "red zone" on their level meters, thus assuring that whatever the musicians do, they won't over modulate the recording.

 

Good point.

 

So, in essence, the high-bit rate affords both the recordist and the listener a wider window through which to squeeze all that music. The touted advantages of wider frequency response and wider dynamic range are real enough, but their usefulness lies in the ability to solve problems in capture and playback that have long vexed the high-fidelity community. Just because one can't hear above 20 KHz, or one's playback equipment (not to mention one's ears) fall far short of the required to specs to utilize the 48 KHz bandpass or the 144 dB (theoretical) dynamic range of high-res formats, doesn't mean that this over abundance of capability can't be used to improve the recorded music experience.

 

It's well reasoned, and simply explained answers like these that make me like this site as much as I do. The knowledge base and level of respect from participants (most of the time) is what keeps me coming back.

[wgscott]

I thought MSB's DACs are 24bit or 26bit ones.

 

What about 32 bit DACs

 

32 bit floating pt calculations -- 24 bit DAC.

[gmgraves]

I agree with many of the points from Post 6 onwards.

A few points here .

1. Barry Diament's microphones are only 1dB down at 40kHz IIRC.

2. Modern SS amplifiers can have much better S/N than most valve amplifiers, and possibly Class D too ?

Back in 2008 , Silicon Chip magazine published their ULD Mk.2 design which has a S/N of 122dB unweighted W.R.T. 135W into 8 ohms (22Hz to 22kHz) There are plenty more like that around.

My own Silicon Chip 15W Class A from 1998 was quoted as 113dB unweighted, and 116dB weighted.(22Hz to 22kHz.)

My own highly modified version would be even quieter, and with an improved bandwidth over their original published design.

 

It's about time that speaker designers (in general) gave us wider bandwidth speakers to help realise the benefits of better S/N and bandwidth from high resolution formats.

 

There are a number of microphones from Japan (Sanko), as well mikes from Europe, such as Scheops, AKG, B&K, etc., that have significant ultrasonic response to 40 KHz and even higher. But frequency response plots of most musical instruments show that few have any output above about 27KHz, and whether or not this ultrasonic performance is perceivable in any way by the human body is quite controversial.

 

A S/N on any electronic component greater than the threshold of hearing (~-115 dB) is mostly gilding the lilly. Whether an amp has an S/N of -120, -130, or -140 dB is pretty academic since no one can hear those improvements anyway. It's like being put first is a totally dark room, and then being moved to a darker than a totally dark room - you can't see anything in either. Same with totally quiet. You can't hear anything more quiet than totally silent, and for humans that's anything below ~115 db.

 

I don't think that either frequency response extension or dynamic range need any improvement on the speaker front. But what is needed, IMHO, is speakers with absolutely FLAT frequency response (like most amps have) and less coloration. No speaker comes even close to being a totally accurate, fully transparent transducer. Unfortunately, even were that possible, it will be only a moderate improvement, because no speaker lives its "life" in an anechoic chamber. The room will always be a part of that equation and there is no way that a speaker manufacturer can anticipate the myriad characteristics of the rooms in which their products will ultimately be used.

[kennyb123]

I know there are people who believe that high res is snake oil and that anyone who believes they hear a difference, is fooling themselves. I'd like to hear from the other side though. How given all of these facts, is it still possible for high res audio to provide any benefit at all?

 

To be clear, I am not questioning the value of the format, so much as I'm wondering if the equipment isn't keeping us from ever being able to hear it.

 

Art Dudley makes a really good point, I think, in this interview. I quote him (bold text mine):

 

"From people who say that high resolution digital doesn't matter, because 44.1 kHz satisfies the Nyquist Theorem. That last one is especially troubling because, when you get right down to it, the Nyquist Theorem simply does not and cannot apply to the decimation and reconstruction of a complex music wave: Two samples can indeed be used to describe a single frequency, but that does not provide sufficient sampling density to describe the velocity with which the wave changes –and that is a key component of the difference between music and mere sound."

 

The velocity with which the wave changes is I think a key thing we gain from a higher sample rate (and a key reason why many folks favor DSD). And I think most high end components are able to allow us to appreciate this, unless something is getting in the way (poor setup, poor cabling choices, etc).

[Jason Breckling]

Hello and welcome, Jason. Personally, I tend to find it more helpful to deal with the concrete particulars first. You clearly have made a number of astute choices for your system. Good values all around. But I wonder if your music server and OS might be a weak link. Is this a dedicated music server? Why XP? What kind of music do you listen to and could you offer some details about particular recordings that you've compared at different resolutions? Thanks.

 

Honestly, the reason I'm using the server I am is due to cost (like the rest of my chain.) I upgraded my main computer to an iMac when Microsoft stopped supporting XP, which meant I had a spare computer for the living room. At some point i hope to upgrade to a Mac Mini, but we're buying a house this year, so funds are tight.

 

Our music collection is about as varied as it gets. Our last few albums include John Coltrane, Beck, The Dunedin Consort's Mozart's Requiem, Daft Punk and Nickel Creek. I did try comparing the CD and high res versions of Nickel Creek's A Dotted Line, but there were obvious differences in the masterings which made the test more or less useless. The only true test I've been able to take part in is the experiment going on now at AVS forums. I don't know the results yet, but I did hear differences. I don't know if I picked the CD versions or the high res versions, but it was interesting none the less.

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight. If high res turns out to be demonstratively better, great! If it doesn't, great! That means less hard drive space and cheaper albums. Either way, I enjoy the debate.

[Jason Breckling]

I see from another post you made that you are using smallish standmounts.

These will probably start distorting at around 100dB - this will be their dynamic range at 1 metre.

Now subtract 30dB of room noisefloor and another 6dB for doubling the distance if your listening spot distances 2 metres from the speakers and you are down to 64dB of useable dynamic range.

 

Now suppose you listen mostly to pop/rock and the odd jazz track.

After mixing and editing, these recordings hardly ever have a dynamic range that exceeds 36dB/6bit.

 

Do you really need 24bit files or are you just kidding yourself?

 

R

 

I don't know. The equipment, as well as other real world factors, is exactly where I was going with the topic. I don't suppose that high res isn't inherently better. I just don't know if our equipment and surroundings allow it to shine.

 

A similar question would be, does it make sense to get a great camera, with an outstanding sensor, if you're going to put crappy glass in front of it?

 

Jason

[kennyb123]

A similar question would be, does it make sense to get a great camera, with an outstanding sensor, if you're going to put crappy glass in front of it?

 

Not a good analogy as what gets captured gets damaged in this case - and nothing you can do will improve the image once that damage has been done. A hig res music file has the potential to further impress as one's system is improved.

[Allan F]

I wouldn't buy a DSD DAC from those that doesn't believe in DSD: Benchmark

 

Walberg is Walberg, he is defending his own 24/96 recordings and I don't trust his ears, because I don't like his mediocre recordings.

 

Roch

 

At least Mark Walberg is consistent, unlike John Siau who is a hypocrite. Siau sat in as a member of a panel at RMAF 2013 seminar, billed as "DSD Downloads, The New High-Resolution Standard: A Major Update". When I quoted the comments he made in the Walberg interview and specifically asked him if he had changed his views about DSD, his answer was as waffling as that of a politician faced with a tough question. In talking to them after the seminar, other members of the panel wondered why he was there. The moderator told me that he had asked to be on the panel.

 

I am in substantial agreement with the points raised by George. More to the point, in answer to the OP's question, my answer is "No, we are not". If you have a good equipment, the superiority sound quality of hi res is demonstrably audible. However, there is a major caveat that applies to all digital (and analog) recordings. The quality of the original recording, which is a result of the care taken in producing it, is far more important than any format.

[kumakuma]

A hig res music file has the potential to further impress as one's system is improved.

 

+1

 

I'm also hoping that my hearing will improve.

[wkhanna]

I wouldn't buy a DSD DAC from those that doesn't believe in DSD: Benchmark

 

Walberg is Walberg, he is defending his own 24/96 recordings and I don't trust his ears, because I don't like his mediocre recordings.

 

Roch

 

Totally OT....

 

I have not been here in awhile.....

Just V pleased to see Roch is as easy going & un-opinionated as ever.

 

Be well, & nurture the Bonsai.

[sandyk]

There are a number of microphones from Japan (Sanko), as well mikes from Europe, such as Scheops, AKG, B&K, etc., that have significant ultrasonic response to 40 KHz and even higher. But frequency response plots of most musical instruments show that few have any output above about 27KHz,

George

It has been said many times already that Barry's 24/92 recordings have genuine musical content to higher than 57kHz.

Charts have also been posted several times in C.A. that show that there is life in music WAY above the 27kHz that you quote.Likewise, it is also fairly easy to demonstrate that improved amplifier S/N benefits low level ambience.

If you can hear hiss or low level hum with your ears right near the speaker cones, as you can with many amplifiers, then low level ambience will be degraded, just as it is with an Air Conditioner running on low.

 

Alex

[RealAudio]

There are a number of microphones from Japan (Sanko), as well mikes from Europe, such as Scheops, AKG, B&K, etc., that have significant ultrasonic response to 40 KHz and even higher. But frequency response plots of most musical instruments show that few have any output above about 27KHz, and whether or not this ultrasonic performance is perceivable in any way by the human body is quite controversial.

 

 

I just checked the Scheops web site, I couldn't find a single microphone that specified an upper frequency response above 20K. The same goes for AKG, every spec shows 20K. As for B&K (I assume you mean Bruel & Kjaer), they make specialized instrumentation microphones that extend to ultrasonics, but once again their studio microphones are speced to 20K. As the most popular studio microphones, the Neumann U67/U87, they are speced to 20K except for the old tube versions that are still much loved in certain circles that top off at 16K,

[RealAudio]

George

It has been said many times already that Barry's 24/92 recordings have genuine musical content to higher than 57kHz.

Charts have also been posted several times in C.A. that show that there is life in music WAY above the 27kHz that you quote.Likewise, it is also fairly easy to demonstrate that improved amplifier S/N benefits low level ambience.

If you can hear hiss or low level hum with your ears right near the speaker cones, as you can with many amplifiers, then low level ambience will be degraded, just as it is with an Air Conditioner running on low.

 

Alex

 

 

I can easily show that the sun emits energy in the high ultraviolet to even x rays. That you can see it in measurement (funny this is one time measurements seem to count) does not mean that every textbook on human hearing is wrong.

[sandyk]

I can easily show that the sun emits energy in the high ultraviolet to even x rays. That you can see it in measurement (funny this is one time measurements seem to count) does not mean that every textbook on human hearing is wrong.

 

No, it doesn't mean that every textbook on human hearing is wrong. It simply suggests that most need updating to reflect more recent research.

You also keep dismissing the large number of reports about people hearing further improvements with the very latest DSD format.

Theory will eventually show that these people are correct. It just takes a while to catch up with the real world.

[wgscott]

Art Dudley makes a really good point, I think, in this interview. I quote him (bold text mine):

 

"From people who say that high resolution digital doesn't matter, because 44.1 kHz satisfies the Nyquist Theorem. That last one is especially troubling because, when you get right down to it, the Nyquist Theorem simply does not and cannot apply to the decimation and reconstruction of a complex music wave: Two samples can indeed be used to describe a single frequency, but that does not provide sufficient sampling density to describe the velocity with which the wave changes –and that is a key component of the difference between music and mere sound."

 

The velocity with which the wave changes is I think a key thing we gain from a higher sample rate (and a key reason why many folks favor DSD). And I think most high end components are able to allow us to appreciate this, unless something is getting in the way (poor setup, poor cabling choices, etc).

 

That is just wrong. In fact, it betrays a complete misunderstanding.

[alfe]

Just reminder:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/how-high-can-you-hear-18769/

[kennyb123]

That is just wrong. In fact, it betrays a complete misunderstanding.

 

Please explain.

[sandyk]

When will people realise that it's the rise time of the waveform that our hearing responds too, such as primitive man being awakened at night by the approach of enemies due to the snapping of a twig, and not the maximum sine wave frequency we can hear ?

 

 

High Resolution : Capturing The Moment - General HIFI Discussion - HIFICRITIC FORUM - HIFICRITIC FORUM : hi fi audio systems forum

[alfe]

When will people realise that it's the rise time of the waveform that our hearing responds too, such as primitive man being awakened at night by the approach of enemies due to the snapping of a twig, and not the maximum sine wave frequency we can hear ?

 

 

High Resolution : Capturing The Moment - General HIFI Discussion - HIFICRITIC FORUM - HIFICRITIC FORUM : hi fi audio systems forum

 

The young generation is happy with MP3 so they have to convince the old one that they can hear enough to keep the business going ¨-)