Does High Resolution Audio sound better

mayhem13 · March 15, 2015

Hi Ricardo,

It depends on what one is seeking. If one wants the results to sound like what occurred in the presence of the microphones, in my experience, flat amplitude and phase response are two key components that can make this happen.

Of course, if one seeks a "darker" sound than what is heard at the event itself, deviations from flat might be one way to achieve this.

Indeed, actually trying it out is infinitely more informative than theorizing or reading about it on the Internet.

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Some good points throughout Barry, and I agree with quite a few you've made but of course we can't see eye to eye on everything! Lol

From a position of market trends and practicality, I don't ever see 24/192 being offered as an industry standard with newly recorded music. It's pretty clear the general population appreciates easily managed files and compatable devices that are flexibly, affordable and portable. But I also applaud your efforts for working within a format that affords you what you deem to be the best results possible.

We've had our differences in discussions of acoustics before, so I won't rehash it here. There's times when I need to do critical listening, and systems that 'get out of the way' as you put it are just right. But when sitting in my favorite chair in my dedicated room looking to wind down, I find a reverberant field and even power response more pleasing to enjoy over time and not nearly as fatiguing.

As to soundstage and imaging, well.........I've personally never experienced dimishing spacial cues from lower resolution content and I doubt the validity of the position that higher resolution recordings offer improved imaging or soundstage over others.....it's either in the recoding or it isn't. As as long as the signal chain is offering sufficient channel seperation, the rest is in the recording, the speakers and the room.

........in other words, from a standpoint of pure practicality for hobbyists, isn't there far more Important things to worry about than 16/44 vs 24/192?

wakibaki · March 15, 2015

Why does everybody want to go from 16 to 24?

Because a byte is 8 bits wide. It's 3 bytes instead of 2 bytes.

Why is a byte 8 bits wide? Because 8 is 2 cubed, and it can hold a number 0-255, which is big enough to hold a numeric representation of all the alphanumeric characters and a load of punctuation and other symbols, dating back to Teletype machines and before.

Which is why we should have 24 bits instead of 18.

audiventory · March 15, 2015

In re-reading this whole thread, I couldn't help but wonder how many of those defending 16/44 as fully sufficient of reproducing everything we can hear were on the opposite side of that issue in comparing CD's to vinyl (i.e. LP's are inherently more accurate than redbook CDs)?

44 kHz placed at edge of possible technical realisation and enought audio range, many years ago.

For short signals upper 10 000 Hz (2-3 samples per period) better restoring from hi-res even for non-pro filtration. Due presence of information vs. restoring information.

I can't say about threshold of human perception here, of course.

I think will not unambigous opinion here. Like no unambigous opinion about mp3 320 vs. PCM44/16.

Now simpler develop devices for high sample rates due less steep filters.

DSD allow release simpler and cheaper ADC and DAC - need provide only 2 levels and less steep filter LF.

Don Hills · March 15, 2015

... While it may be that they both get increasingly raggedy as the level goes down, so far I have not heard this phenomenon with real 24-bit recordings. ...

Granted, I was speaking "in theory". I know that things are often different in practice[1]. For example, while 24/192 is in theory better than 24/96, "in practice" it may not due to shortcomings in the architecture of some DACs[2]. (I doubt you would have this problem, given your care and attention to detail.) Theory predicts that there should be no significant audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192; that you do hear a significant difference indicates a possible difference in implementation.

[1]"Never turn your back on digital". - Bob Ludwig.

[2]Dan Lavry.

semente · March 15, 2015

Hi Barry,

Studies have shown that frequencies above 8kHz are essential for accurate speech localization.

This is why I was questioning your opinion when you said that

For things like room size cues, which I would agree tend to "live" at the low end frequency-wise (...)

and

(...) to my ears, one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is.

And it could perhaps help explain why audiophiles characterize high-res sound as better at re-creating the space around the instruments; high-res material if free of "interference" (filter effects) close to the top of the listening range.

And I think it's also relevant to note that, from what I have read in multiple sources, frequencies above 16kHz are conventionally perceived by recording professionals as "airy".

There's a comment at Teach Me Audio that I find particularly interesting:

The brilliance range (6-20kHz) is composed entirely of harmonics and is responsible for sparkle and air of a sound. Boost around 12kHz make a recording sound more Hi Fi.

Be cautious over boosting in this region as it can accentuate hiss or cause ear fatigue.

It is this "air" and "sparkle" that I was referring to as "un-natural" and "un-realistic" when I said that perhaps flat up to 20kHz isn't the "right" way to go about it when recording and reproducing (acoustic, unamplified) music (from a documental perspective).

In any case, for those with the ability to hear frequencies above 16kHz high-res will provide some extra information, and if I am not mistaken, more so when the sources have been close-mic'ed.

But I do acknowledge that my comments on the merits of a "darker" sound are of a more philosophical and perceptual nature, a matter of taste perhaps...

Best,

Ricardo

semente · March 15, 2015

Some good points throughout Barry, and I agree with quite a few you've made but of course we can't see eye to eye on everything! Lol

From a position of market trends and practicality, I don't ever see 24/192 being offered as an industry standard with newly recorded music. It's pretty clear the general population appreciates easily managed files and compatable devices that are flexibly, affordable and portable. But I also applaud your efforts for working within a format that affords you what you deem to be the best results possible.

We've had our differences in discussions of acoustics before, so I won't rehash it here. There's times when I need to do critical listening, and systems that 'get out of the way' as you put it are just right. But when sitting in my favorite chair in my dedicated room looking to wind down, I find a reverberant field and even power response more pleasing to enjoy over time and not nearly as fatiguing.

As to soundstage and imaging, well.........I've personally never experienced dimishing spacial cues from lower resolution content and I doubt the validity of the position that higher resolution recordings offer improved imaging or soundstage over others.....it's either in the recoding or it isn't. As as long as the signal chain is offering sufficient channel seperation, the rest is in the recording, the speakers and the room.

........in other words, from a standpoint of pure practicality for hobbyists, isn't there far more Important things to worry about than 16/44 vs 24/192?

I have an interesting recording of Couperin's "Office des Ténèbres" (counter-tenor, bass violin, theorbo, organ) that was produced in a church using a recording dummy head.

In my view, it's quite well accomplished (natural-sounding tonal balance and "wet" perspective) and despite the apparent lack of high frequency content it adequatelly portrays the acoustic character of a church and still retains the all important transients (even though they might have been "softened" a bit by mic distance) necessary for an accurate representation of the instruments' and vocal timbre; on the other hand there's no trace of "sparkly highs" (no un-natural lip nor instrument mechanical noises) or "airy" ambiance.

This is what the sound spectrum looks like:

You can find a snippet of this particular track here.

Best,

Ricardo

bdiament · March 15, 2015

...As to soundstage and imaging, well.........I've personally never experienced dimishing spacial cues from lower resolution content and I doubt the validity of the position that higher resolution recordings offer improved imaging or soundstage over others.....it's either in the recoding or it isn't. As as long as the signal chain is offering sufficient channel seperation, the rest is in the recording, the speakers and the room.

........in other words, from a standpoint of pure practicality for hobbyists, isn't there far more Important things to worry about than 16/44 vs 24/192?

Hi Anthony,

While separation is a critical component, in my experience, it isn't the only one. Much spatial information is going to occur at relatively low levels, so low-level resolution is key too. Without it, you can have perfect separation but the spatial cues will be largely obscured.

Note, I'm not talking about where the noise floor is, since I don't believe that to be an issue, even at 16-bits. But low-level resolution at 16-bits is, to my ears, pretty low quality when it is there at all. I understand you say you've never experienced diminishing spatial cues from lower resolution content. It is one of the things I've found to jump out at me when comparing high res. vs. Redbook when both are from the same mastering.

As I've often said, I believe 90-95% of a recording's ultimate quality ceiling has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. Everything after that, from mic cables, preamps, recording device, mix (if any), mastering, and format--including delivery format--only determines how much of what was originally captured the listener gets to hear.

So what's important? I'd say everything. What to worry about? I'd say go after the links in the chain in order of weakness. Once the weakest links have been attended to, going after the less weak links will continue the improvements. Put another way, what I've found is that any improvement anywhere in the chain makes the end result better.

Best regards,

Barry

bdiament · March 15, 2015

Granted, I was speaking "in theory". I know that things are often different in practice[1]. For example, while 24/192 is in theory better than 24/96, "in practice" it may not due to shortcomings in the architecture of some DACs[2]. (I doubt you would have this problem, given your care and attention to detail.) Theory predicts that there should be no significant audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192; that you do hear a significant difference indicates a possible difference in implementation...

Hi Don,

In practice, it may also be because, as Keith Johnson has also put it referring to 4x rates in general, 24/192 crosses a threshold. To my ears, 24/96 while better than 16/44, sounds closer to that than it does to properly done 24/192. I say "properly done" because my experience has been that this is apparently easier to put on a spec sheet than to realize in full. I've heard a number of DACs that sound *worse*, or sometimes no better, at 24/192 than they do at 24/96. I attribute this to the significantly increased demands on clocking accuracy and on analog stage performance at the wider bandwidths. But those DACs aren't, to my ears, so superb at the easier 2x rates either. I believe the lower rates just "stress" them less. (Some designers talk down on 4x rates and others just design devices that can realize their potential.)

When I'm at a recording session and comparing the output of the A-D-A with the direct mic feed, the very best 24/96 I've heard sounds great. That is exactly what I find wrong with it. It "sounds". In contrast, the very best 24/192 produces results I have yet to be able to distinguish from the direct mic feed. To me, having used all sorts of analog and digital recording devices over the years, this is a dream come true. There are many devices that sound "great" and are capable of producing very pleasurable results. But this is not the same as having a device that just, as I like to put it, gets out of the way.

If theory predicts there should be no significant audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192, I say we need a better theory.

I've long said I believe there is more to be learned about digital.

Best regards,

Barry

Skeptic · March 15, 2015

I don't follow your logic. I can understand how a specific recording might have spurious tones and other distortions and thus be bad, but I don't see how the conclusions you draw are entailed by the statements you are making.

Well if we could hear or otherwise "detect" frequencies above 20kHz, as some people suggest, then these tracks which have piercing tones in the 25-30kHz region would be unlistenable.

And yet I have not seen one person complain about this on audiophile forums.

Even at lower frequencies, this is rare. Sometimes there are tones which could be audible, e.g. 15.7kHz, and few people seem able to hear them.

For what it's worth, I can hear this, and I have to filter out that piercing tone. But the fact that few people seem to even complain about that when it happens suggests to me that we really don't have to worry about reproducing tones >20kHz.

And while we cannot hear them directly, these spurious tones that exist in high-res versions of a track but not CD-quality ones, may introduce distortions within the audible range, whether that is aliasing, IMD, ringing, or other problems by placing more demands on the speakers/other components by having them reproduce say 0-48k rather than 0-20k.

So the inclusion of frequencies outside the range of hearing can have an effect on what we hear, but only indirectly, by causing problems for the audio that we can hear.

And if it's well produced without spurious tones, and your system has no problem reproducing everything up to 48k, then the end result should be that it sounds the same, not better.

There is an excellent PhD thesis that explains the theory of dither in great detail. http://www.iet.ntnu.no/courses/fe8114/files/Wannamaker_phd_2003.pdf

There are lots of false claims bandied about in discussions of digital audio. TPDF dither being equvalent to noise is one of them. Close, but no cigar. Sixteen bit audio, made with TPDF dither is good enough for some people but other people prefer 24 bits. My personal preference is that I want all the bits that the people making the recording had without any of these having to be thrown on the floor.

I'll have to dedicate some time to reading this in its entirety, but it seems like an interesting read, thanks.

The conclusion at the end seems to be that TPDF, while perhaps not mathematically perfect, seems to be sufficient for audio purposes.

I will say that I do prefer to receive/play 24-bit tracks, but not because I find 16-bit plus dither to sound worse - mainly because some of my setups have quite a bit of processing applied that could reveal some of the limitations of 16-bit, and because an improperly produced 16-bit track could have audible distortion, while it should be virtually inaudible in 24-bit.

bdiament · March 15, 2015

Hi Barry,

Studies have shown that frequencies above 8kHz are essential for accurate speech localization.

This is why I was questioning your opinion when you said that

Hi Ricardo,

My comments ("For things like room size cues, which I would agree tend to "live" at the low end frequency-wise..." and "...to my ears, one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is.)" were clearly about detecting room size and composition, not about localization. Those are two very different things.

And it could perhaps help explain why audiophiles characterize high-res sound as better at re-creating the space around the instruments; high-res material if free of "interference" (filter effects) close to the top of the listening range.

? I was referring to the *bottom* of the range.

And I think it's also relevant to note that, from what I have read in multiple sources, frequencies above 16kHz are conventionally perceived by recording professionals as "airy".
There's a comment at Teach Me Audio that I find particularly interesting:

The brilliance range (6-20kHz) is composed entirely of harmonics and is responsible for sparkle and air of a sound. Boost around 12kHz make a recording sound more Hi Fi.

Be cautious over boosting in this region as it can accentuate hiss or cause ear fatigue.

It is this "air" and "sparkle" that I was referring to as "un-natural" and "un-realistic" when I said that perhaps flat up to 20kHz isn't the "right" way to go about it when recording and reproducing (acoustic, unamplified) music (from a documental perspective).

I would not confuse quotes from multiple sources as being representative of recording professionals in general.

I would certainly not agree with the statement suggesting that a boost around 12 kHz will make a recording sound more Hi Fi. Such generalizations ignore what the original recording might sound like. What if the source was a mix created using a bad monitoring setup (much more common in studios than many of us would wish to know)? What if the monitors were shrieking at 12 k and the mix engineer decided to roll off everything in that region? By the time such a mix got to the mastering room, the engineer there, if they have good ears and good monitoring, might notice a severe dip in the region of 12 k. In such a case, a boost around 12 k might just make the recording sound more natural.

Can you see why seeing such a generalization would make me immediately suspect of the source of such a quote?

In my experience, the only time being flat up to the very top of the range would result in an unnatural or unrealistic sound would be if some component of the system had increasing distortion at the top. This could be somewhat masked by a roll-off. However, we should be clear, the fault is not in flatness, it is in the increasing distortion of something in the system.

In any case, for those with the ability to hear frequencies above 16kHz high-res will provide some extra information, and if I am not mistaken, more so when the sources have been close-mic'ed.
But I do acknowledge that my comments on the merits of a "darker" sound are of a more philosophical and perceptual nature, a matter of taste perhaps...

Best,

Ricardo

In my experience, close mic'ing in and of itself is not going to cause any sort of upward tilt. (If anything, it tends to exaggerate the middle and lose the bottom.) On the other hand, those that tend to mic closely, also tend to use microphones that have treble peaks -- but nowhere near 16 kHz. The peaks are usually an octave lower, at around 8 kHz. Those mics are already losing "altitude" at 16 kHz.

As I said earlier, there is nothing like actually trying all these things out to put a lot of what is seen on the web to immediate rest.

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

bdiament · March 15, 2015

I have an interesting recording of Couperin's "Office des Ténèbres" (counter-tenor, bass violin, theorbo, organ) that was produced in a church using a recording dummy head.
In my view, it's quite well accomplished (natural-sounding tonal balance and "wet" perspective) and despite the apparent lack of high frequency content it adequatelly portrays the acoustic character of a church and still retains the all important transients (even though they might have been "softened" a bit by mic distance) necessary for an accurate representation of the instruments' and vocal timbre; on the other hand there's no trace of "sparkly highs" (no un-natural lip nor instrument mechanical noises) or "airy" ambiance...

Hi Ricardo,

Do you know what microphones were used?

Check the response of the mics (in amplitude and time).

I say this because it is important to keep in mind that when one is looking at such an illustration, it isn't just the recording that makes what we see.

It is everything in the chain, starting with the microphones themselves, continuing with everyone afterward, and merely ending with decisions made by the engineer.

Best regards,

Barry

semente · March 15, 2015

Hi Barry,

Here's the info from the booklet:

Recorder: Sony 16 bits, linear quantization

Sampling frequency: 44,1 kHz

Frequency response: 2 - 20 kHz ± 0,5 dB

S/N ratio: 96 dB linear

Microphones: 2 Bruel & Kjaer (4003 S with 2812 power supply) mounted in a Charlin-type dummy head

Microphone frequency response: lower limit background noise - upper limit 151dB

The B&K 4003 is now made by DPA.

By the way, what did you think of the recording?

Best,

Ricardo

bdiament · March 15, 2015

Hi Barry,

Here's the info from the booklet:

Recorder: Sony 16 bits, linear quantization

Sampling frequency: 44,1 kHz

Frequency response: 2 - 20 kHz ± 0,5 dB

S/N ratio: 96 dB linear

Microphones: 2 Bruel & Kjaer (4003 S with 2812 power supply) mounted in a Charlin-type dummy head

Microphone frequency response: lower limit background noise - upper limit 151dB

The B&K 4003 is now made by DPA.

By the way, what did you think of the recording?

Best,

Ricardo

Hi Ricardo,

B&K mics are among my favorites. They were my absolute favorite until I heard the Earthworks, which have much wider bandwidth and must faster settling time and (perhaps consequently) to my ears, are better at getting out of the way. Still, I think some B&K mics are among the world's very best.

By the way, I believe the liner notes may be in error when claiming the mics are 20-20 within 0.5 dB. B&K's own specs, in the link you provided, say +/- 2 dB.

I checked out the recording (but only on the computer, not on the main system). The music is absolutely lovely. I would consider purchasing a copy but I notice though that it appears to be available only via iTunes, which to me says it has been reduced from its original. Perhaps this is what makes for what seem like some of the darker aspects of the sound. Then again, I'd need to hear the unreduced recording on my main system to truly assess the sonics.

Note that for this type of music, it is appropriate to back up a bit more on the mics to get more of the reverberation from the church. This type of music is also properly recorded in a reverberant space, as it was. For something like an acoustic/electric string band, the added reverberation would, in my opinion, not be appropriate, so for "Winds of Change", I selected a space with a shorter reverb time than in the Couperin recording you cite. I wanted more intimacy; more of a feeling of sitting with the band before you, as opposed to being further away in a grand space, which for the Couperin is how I would have done it too.

Of course, every engineer does it differently. Just as with anything else related to audio, you can get at least as many different "answers" as the number of people you ask. ;-}

Best regards,

Barry

http://www.amazon.com/Office-Tenebres-Francois-Couperin/dp/B000050KJS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426432292&sr=8-1&keywords=B000050KJS

jabbr · March 15, 2015

You mentioned that

"For things like room size cues, which I would agree tend to "live" at the low end frequency-wise and the low levels amplitude-wise, I think the word length is where many of the prime benefits lie"

and that

"one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is"

I wish to test this by listening to your 16/44.1 and 24/96 samples low-passed.

Cheers,

Ricardo

You are making the assumption that reproduction of the bottom octave of music notes involves only the bottom range of audio frequencies. Harmonics are critical. If the weren't, there would be no difference between a cheap plastic violin and a Stradivarius.

Your brain hears the note as bass, but that involves the synthesis of many harmonics, not limited to ones consciously perceptible.

semente · March 15, 2015

B&K mics are among my favorites. They were my absolute favorite until I heard the Earthworks, which have much wider bandwidth and must faster settling time and (perhaps consequently) to my ears, are better at getting out of the way. Still, I think some B&K mics are among the world's very best.

By the way, I believe the liner notes may be in error when claiming the mics are 20-20 within 0.5 dB. B&K's own specs, in the link you provided, say +/- 2 dB.

I checked out the recording (but only on the computer, not on the main system). The music is absolutely lovely. I would consider purchasing a copy but I notice though that it appears to be available only via iTunes, which to me says it has been reduced from its original. Perhaps this is what makes for what seem like some of the darker aspects of the sound. Then again, I'd need to hear the unreduced recording on my main system to truly assess the sonics.

Note that for this type of music, it is appropriate to back up a bit more on the mics to get more of the reverberation from the church. This type of music is also properly recorded in a reverberant space, as it was. For something like an acoustic/electric string band, the added reverberation would, in my opinion, not be appropriate, so for "Winds of Change", I selected a space with a shorter reverb time than in the Couperin recording you cite. I wanted more intimacy; more of a feeling of sitting with the band before you, as opposed to being further away in a grand space, which for the Couperin is how I would have done it too.

Of course, every engineer does it differently. Just as with anything else related to audio, you can get at least as many different "answers" as the number of people you ask. ;-}

Hi Barry,

I don't think that so much reverberance would suit "Winds of Change", rock or folk either.

The sample I uploaded came from the CD...the "darker" sound is real and to my ears very "natural-sounding".

You could buy the CD on Amazon but the asking price is a bit of a rip-off for a used disc:

There's another one on eBay:

Gerard Lesne Couperin Tenebres Three Tenebrae Lessons for Holy Wednesday CD HR | eBay

Best,

Ricardo

semente · March 15, 2015

While separation is a critical component, in my experience, it isn't the only one. Much spatial information is going to occur at relatively low levels, so low-level resolution is key too. Without it, you can have perfect separation but the spatial cues will be largely obscured.

Note, I'm not talking about where the noise floor is, since I don't believe that to be an issue, even at 16-bits. But low-level resolution at 16-bits is, to my ears, pretty low quality when it is there at all. I understand you say you've never experienced diminishing spatial cues from lower resolution content. It is one of the things I've found to jump out at me when comparing high res. vs. Redbook when both are from the same mastering.

As I've often said, I believe 90-95% of a recording's ultimate quality ceiling has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the microphones. Everything after that, from mic cables, preamps, recording device, mix (if any), mastering, and format--including delivery format--only determines how much of what was originally captured the listener gets to hear.

So what's important? I'd say everything. What to worry about? I'd say go after the links in the chain in order of weakness. Once the weakest links have been attended to, going after the less weak links will continue the improvements. Put another way, what I've found is that any improvement anywhere in the chain makes the end result better.

Hi Barry,

Regarding the lack of low-level resolution (Redbook) that you mention, how far below 0dBFS does it become apparent/intrusive?

Cheers,

Ricardo

Tony Lauck · March 15, 2015

The conclusion at the end seems to be that TPDF, while perhaps not mathematically perfect, seems to be sufficient for audio purposes.

I will say that I do prefer to receive/play 24-bit tracks, but not because I find 16-bit plus dither to sound worse - mainly because some of my setups have quite a bit of processing applied that could reveal some of the limitations of 16-bit, and because an improperly produced 16-bit track could have audible distortion, while it should be virtually inaudible in 24-bit.

A few years ago, I did some preliminary experiments to see whether or not TPDF dither was sonically equivalent to adding white noise at the same level (which would be what one would get with subtractive dither). To make the comparison easier, I did the dither at 8 bits. My preliminary take on this was that TPDF dither was not sonically equivalent to additive noise and that more investigation would be needed, including accurate calibration of noise level and probability distribution functions and blind listening tests. (I didn't follow up on this, because I had reached the conclusion that this work might have been relevant in the 1980's, but it was no longer relevant because there was no significant economic benefit for throwing away "unneeded" bits.)

There is one more aspect to noise that I've not seen analyzed, and that is the difference between additive noise that appears in playback vs. additive noise that is baked into a recording. If one plays each recording only once then it won't be possible for a listener to distinguish between these two (other things being equal). However, as soon as the same recording is played multiple times, it may be possible to distinguish a difference by ear. (If one doubts this, try playing a short loop of random noise. At first one won't notice the repeats, but after a few times one will find a pattern that is easily remembered.) There may be some benefits to having truly random noise in the analog portion of a playback chain.

Jud · March 15, 2015

Hi Jud,

Are there any microphones in use in that live acoustic music? Or do you mean completely without reinforcement?

It really depends on the player(s) and vocalist(s) too of course.

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Both.

It's interesting for me to think about my goals in listening to live music versus listening to recordings at home. Something like watching sports live versus watching them at home, I believe part of what I'm looking for at home, along with emotional involvement, is the ability to take a closer look (as well as, of course, the ability to repeat the experience). So perhaps that, together with being accustomed to close-miked recordings, has something to do with my preferences.

Ajax · March 15, 2015

What's the Mark Twain quote about arguing with fools...? Pass.

Yet another smart arse post that adds no value.

I had a look through your profile and there is a consistency in your posts since you joined 3 months ago. Unlike the professionals who post here you don't actually add any value and as much as a I dislike the term there is a troll like quality to them.

You complain about "swimming in the sewer", yet you are the one shitting on everybody. Usually that type of behaviour is generated by those that have experienced little success in life or had not the guts to have a go.

Try this shoe on - Chris C, Barry D, Miska, Peter St and others have had the good fortune to be talented with specific gifts and get a genuine joy out of what they do. Whether it be designing specific hardware or software or recoding the music in the first place. They have then had the courage to take that talent and turn it into a business. i.e. they risk their time and capital to follow a dream and in doing so go to work and do what they love. Do you do that?

I am indebted to these gentlemen for what they have taught me about audio and I have never once felt pressured to buy their products, and in fact the only product I have purchased is the $75 Audirvana playback software. Does that sound like a fool.

bdiament · March 15, 2015

Hi Barry,

Regarding the lack of low-level resolution (Redbook) that you mention, how far below 0dBFS does it become apparent/intrusive?

Cheers,

Ricardo

Hi Ricardo,

The answer depends of course on whom you ask. Some will say there is no loss. To my ears, I'd say that by -12 things are starting and by -24 they're well on the way. At lower levels, instruments just sound (to me) like much cheaper, less maintained versions of themselves, and the space is ill-defined.

Best regards,

Barry