Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[sandyk]

My amp's flat to 1 MHz, so I guess after the mikes, speakers are next.

 

IIRC, one of Miska's very favourite amplifiers had a 1MHz bandwidth too.

[bogi]

The bottom line is that we don't any more than we need 192 or 384 KHz sampling rates. They just uselessly make the files larger.

 

High sampling rates don't need necessarily to be about source recording sample rate. Many of us are using software upsampling and/or conversion to DSD to get better sound from PCM recordings.

All delta-sigma DACs do much digital processing before digital signal comes to D/A conversion stage itself. The D/A conversion stage itself in delta-sigma DACs is receiving very high sample rate pulse density modulation signal. With software upsampling or conversion to DSD you can substitute significant part of digital processing in DAC with higher quality computer based digital processing.

 

The whole thing of hardware or software based oversampling/upsampling and delta-sigma modulation is about getting less distortion, less noise, better resolution, simply better quality sound from our recordings with current DACs.

 

Knowing why delta-sigma DACs work on very high sample rates makes me no sense to say that high sample rates are useless. We can speak about if it has sense to have higher sample rate recordings. What is now happening is lowering resolution of digital mix result to fit specs of distribution media. Then our DACs or software is doing oversampling/upsampling to better reconstruct the previously reduced digital signal to be suitable for D/A stages of DAC chips. That reducing sample rate and then increasing it again cannot happen without some quality loss, as we are facing with real world devices and software and not with theoretically ideal ones.

 

What one is able to hear and what not is purely individual and subjective matter. IMO it is not appropriate to tell anyone what he/she should not be hearing. We are listening to music but also to our digital and analog equipment, each part adds it's own distortion or sonic fingerprint.

[semente]

Why did Sony originally sell tweeters with a genuine response to 100kHz when SACD was introduced, but before they dumbed it's frequency response down after some poorly designed amplifiers couldn't handle ultrasonics too well and started to smoke and blow fuses?

 

Marketing comes to mind...

 

Why do Barry Diament's 24/192 recordings have GENUINE musical content to past 65kHz ?

 

His mics have that ability though if you look at the spectrum plots you'll realise that whatever energy there is above 20kHz will be very low in level, - 60dB at most. Besides his recordings are a bit on the bright side which helps bring up the energy level.

I understand that some instruments like trumpets do produce high level ultrasonic harmonics though it would be interesting to learn if a normal human being would turn around and look for a sound source if those harmonics were reproduced with a high pass filter cutting in at 21kHz.

 

Why are we even bothering with MQA if there is no point in frequency extension beyond 20kHz ?

 

There's been some discussion about the lack of effectiveness of filtering digital signals close to the hearing threshold for some decades now.

My bet is on that.

 

If your speakers start rolling off just before 20kHZ then take a nose dive, try listening with a decent pair of headphones which often have usable response to past 40kHz.

 

Try high passing above 20kHz; it might turn out that your headphones are produce high distortion above that and what you hear is the harmonics, just as one probably does with metal-domed tweeters.

 

R

[semente]

Why stop there? Let's have microphones that are flat to 1 MHz, or 10 MHz. After all, Audiophilia Nervosa has no boundaries, so why should practical things like frequency response or the size of audio files?

 

My thoughts exactly...

Many audiophiles obsess about ultrasonics, soundstage and cables and yet they buy speakers with ragged frequency response/tonal balance and drivers that produce unpleasant distortions.

 

R

[semente]

Well, that's sort of my question. The only advantage that I can see is that normal condenser mikes usually have a resonance peak somewhere between 8 and 20 KHz. By extending the microphone's frequency response way into the ultrasonic region, we can perhaps push that peak out beyond the range of human hearing, and have flatter response within the audio passband.

 

Wide-band (also called full range) drivers aren't very effective performers... I wonder if extending the frequency range of a mic would produce more problems than advantages.

 

R

[semente]

George

Just because you are unable to hear and appreciate the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 or DSD, doesn't mean that others, including me, can't.

 

Alex

 

I was surprised to hear (and appreciate) those differences in Mario's sample files, but not because of the ultrasonic content of which there is none significant.

 

R

[Jud]

Though Keith Johnson and Rick Fryer have said otherwise in interviews about the 1 mhz bandwidth, Demian Martin, who designed their earlier gear told me the key parameter was fast fall or release times after a transient signal. An ignored factor in many designs. The wide bandwidth was actually a side effect of making that happen and not a key design goal. So it isn't the bandwidth, it is the fast release after a signal has passed.

 

Ah, yep, that's it. I don't know what KJ and RF have said in interviews, but the Bulletins they release describing/publicizing new designs always talk about minimizing "thermal tails."

[mansr]

Though Keith Johnson and Rick Fryer have said otherwise in interviews about the 1 mhz bandwidth, Demian Martin, who designed their earlier gear told me the key parameter was fast fall or release times after a transient signal. An ignored factor in many designs. The wide bandwidth was actually a side effect of making that happen and not a key design goal. So it isn't the bandwidth, it is the fast release after a signal has passed.

 

Short rise/fall time is exactly equivalent to wide bandwidth. If you're designing for one, you're designing for both.

[semente]

Though Keith Johnson and Rick Fryer have said otherwise in interviews about the 1 mhz bandwidth, Demian Martin, who designed their earlier gear told me the key parameter was fast fall or release times after a transient signal. An ignored factor in many designs. The wide bandwidth was actually a side effect of making that happen and not a key design goal. So it isn't the bandwidth, it is the fast release after a signal has passed.

 

Short rise/fall time is exactly equivalent to wide bandwidth. If you're designing for one, you're designing for both.

 

What are the advantages of having a wide bandwidth?

My custom-made integrated's frequency response is also spec'ed at DC-1mHz.

 

R

[YashN]

Ah, yep, that's it. I don't know what KJ and RF have said in interviews, but the Bulletins they release describing/publicizing new designs always talk about minimizing "thermal tails."

 

Coincidentally, today I saw a great review on WBF for a pair of Spectral pre-amp + amp and this was mentioned there I think.

[Sal1950]

What one is able to hear and what not is purely individual and subjective matter. IMO it is not appropriate to tell anyone what he/she should not be hearing. We are listening to music but also to our digital and analog equipment, each part adds it's own distortion or sonic fingerprint.

 

But there is a point beyond which "a bit of a good thing", that MORE becomes just a big marketing spin and expectation bias can take over. A some point people with more inquisitive minds are going to call the bluff on the claims and ask you to prove it with some type of recognized scientific tests. "Sounds good to me" just don't get it in engineering more accurate recording and playback tools.

[CR250]

""Sounds good to me" just don't get it in engineering more accurate recording and playback tools."

 

And there lies the problem. A few people that know better than everyone else are making recordings that sound like crap, and its expected that everyone should be happy with them because they're accurate. Listening to the vast majority of recordings, why is it that these accuracy geniuses can't make a recording that sounds like real music? I know, because its more accurate that way.

 

"But there is a point beyond which "a bit of a good thing", that MORE becomes just a big marketing spin and expectation bias can take over. A some point people with more inquisitive minds are going to call the bluff on the claims and ask you to prove it with some type of recognized scientific tests."

 

By your own admission, you get all of your information from reading the work of others. And that includes your listening experience. Since having such an inquisitive mind is so valuable, maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, and get some information by using your inquisitive mind. I think its time someone called your bluff. How do you go about confidently diagnosing expectation bias as the primary motivator for an observed behavior? Are you doing it in a scientific manner? Don't be afraid to list all the details. I have a degree in psychology, so I'll do my best to keep up and not waste your time. Or you can just ignore my post and continue to talk BS like you always do.

[gmgraves]

My amp's flat to 1 MHz, so I guess after the mikes, speakers are next.

 

Interesting that amp design came from a Grammy-winning record producer. It's not because he thinks people can hear 1 MHz, but because designing for that capability confers other advantages. Whether the thinking behind wide bandwidth mikes and speakers is similar I frankly don't know.

 

 

Well that kind of response will certainly make dogs and some birds happy, and confuse bats!

[gmgraves]

George

Just because you are unable to hear and appreciate the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 or DSD, doesn't mean that others, including me, can't.

 

Alex

 

 

Who said I can't hear the difference? I can certainly hear the difference and appreciate the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or DSD. But it's the added resolution of DSD and 24-bit coupled with the "oversampling qualities" of the higher clock rates afforded by these formats, not their 100 KHz+ frequency response that we are hearing and appreciating.

[gmgraves]

In a pinch you could use it for a rf linear amp. WOOT

 

Or a magnetic microwave amp!

[esldude]

Or perhaps he was really talking about a quick recovery from such an overload instead of the amplifier latching up and blowing a fuse or worse ?

 

Nope, not what he had in mind.

[esldude]

Short rise/fall time is exactly equivalent to wide bandwidth. If you're designing for one, you're designing for both.

 

Yes I understand that. An analog amp generally needs to be -3 db at 200 khz to be truly flat below 20 khz. It would have sufficient slew rate for the job at hand. I don't know what prompted them to settle on the idea being a fall time or thermal tail where you had that kind of bandwidth, but transients wouldn't fall as fast as one expects. It may be that 1 mhz bandwidth gave fall times that were only equal to those of a 200khz amp in theory. In any case it apparently satisfied them as improving the performance.

 

So they didn't need the extreme bandwidth or slew rate though they surely used it in advertising since it was there in the product. It was a result of getting small thermal tails to varying signals of music. I am even wondering how you could do a good measure of that in the 1980's.

 

Mr. Martin doesn't respond as much as in years past, but he is known as 1audio here. You could PM him and ask what they were looking at during that time.

[esldude]

And there lies the problem. A few people that know better than everyone else are making recordings that sound like crap, and its expected that everyone should be happy with them because they're accurate. Listening to the vast majority of recordings, why is it that these accuracy geniuses can't make a recording that sounds like real music? I know, because its more accurate that way.

 

 

To whom or what recordings do you have in mind here? Very strange idea as recordings are all over the place in quality. I don't know who the accuracy geniuses are you write about. Certainly not in mainstream music. The great majority of recordings are compromised through several different considerations and accuracy geniuses telling us the crap is shinola are few and far in between.

[gmgraves]

24/96 is more than enough. The stuff Mario is doing at that rate is as good as it gets, as he also obvious believes, as does Mark Waldrep and other HDA recording engineers.

When I do buy HDA I'll never pay more money for anything higher than 24/96. Doesn't cost the labels or the sellers like HDTracks a penny more to produce the different PCM and DSD speeds, selling all the different releases in multiple sampling rates for more money as you work your way up is pure marketing hype. And they'll be more coming. They'll want to sell those releases to you again and will have to come up with a "new and improved" bit bucket. OH WAIT, now we have MQA.

Just dang silly.

 

 

Listening tests performed in England by some audio club had the same performance recorded through four identical ADCs at the same time. Other than the sampling rates, the four recordings were identical and all were done at 24-bits. One recording, the "Control", was recorded at 24/44.1, the second was recorded at 24/88.2, the third was 24/96, and the fourth was 24/192. All participants easily heard the difference between 44.1 and 88.2 KHz sampling rates, but nobody could hear any difference between 88.2, 96, and 192 KHz. Seemed to me that the test was using one of the larger B&W speakers for playback and the ADCs and playback DACs were on loan from Benchmark's UK distributor. I read about this test in either HiFi News and Record Review, or HiFi Choice, I don't recall which but it was in somebody's monthly column. Can anybody shed some light on this listening test? Maybe some of our UK friends, here? Teresa?

[gmgraves]

It is indeed the case, but rise time is equally if not more important for timbral accuracy and soundstage and rhythm, so why is it people are still talking about not needing gear with large frequency bands because 'we can't hear bec Nyquist'?

 

It isn't a side-effect, it's a requirement but the advantages for SQ are in things other than frequencies.

 

Same thing for higher resolution files and formats: allows better SQ through gentler filtering, less phase issues, more accurate transient reproductions.

 

Yet, people are still talking crap as if all we hear are frequencies (bec Nyquist).

 

 

That's right, wide bandwidth amps tend to have faster and more well controlled and symmetrical slew rates than do amps with narrower bandwidths. I guess the question is, how much bandwidth is enough? I mean when an amp with a bandwidth of 1 MHz passes a perfect 20 KHz square wave, with no overshoot, no ringing, and perfectly vertical rise and fall times, how much more is needed?

[gmgraves]

Well, the highest overtone of an acoustic instrument is 102.4 KHz so I don't see a reason for going beyond 100kHz. My favorite currently working engineer Michael Bishop of Five/Four Productions (previously Telarc) uses the Sanken CO-100K microphone and records at 11.2MHz DSD. Some have been released on SACD, however the vast majority are only available on stereo CD despite the fact that he records in pure DSD in multichannel and stereo. Perhaps someday these will be available at least as DSD downloads.

 

Has nothing to do with Audiophilia Nervosa but more accurate reproduction of not only the fundamentals but also all the overtone series. Anything that makes recorded music sound more like live music is important to me. Doesn't mean I have to replace any of my lower resolution recordings, just the ability to get new audiophile recordings at even higher resolution.

 

 

Can you hear that 102.4 KHz overtone? Could you hear an overtone at half that frequency? Because to my knowledge, there has never been a human who could. And while there is some speculation that people can actually feel ultrasonic frequencies, there is no evidence that this is true and the consensus of opinion is that the skin and body hair have no receptors that are sensitive to high frequency sound (bass, OTOH, is a different story). I agree that that we should capture as much of the music as is necessary to give us as accurate a playback as possible, but a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

[gmgraves]

Or perhaps he was really talking about a quick recovery from such an overload instead of the amplifier latching up and blowing a fuse or worse ?

 

 

I think that in any amplifier design, absolutely vertical and symmetrical rise and fall times across the entire audio passband are of paramount importance!

[gmgraves]

Wide-band (also called full range) drivers aren't very effective performers... I wonder if extending the frequency range of a mic would produce more problems than advantages.

 

R

 

 

That's always a possibility. Everything seems to be a trade-off of one type or another.

[gmgraves]

I was surprised to hear (and appreciate) those differences in Mario's sample files, but not because of the ultrasonic content of which there is none significant.

 

R

 

Exactly!

[esldude]

Listening tests performed in England by some audio club had the same performance recorded through four identical ADCs at the same time. Other than the sampling rates, the four recordings were identical and all were done at 24-bits. One recording, the "Control", was recorded at 24/44.1, the second was recorded at 24/88.2, the third was 24/96, and the fourth was 24/192. All participants easily heard the difference between 44.1 and 88.2 KHz sampling rates, but nobody could hear any difference between 88.2, 96, and 192 KHz. Seemed to me that the test was using one of the larger B&W speakers for playback and the ADCs and playback DACs were on loan from Benchmark's UK distributor. I read about this test in either HiFi News and Record Review, or HiFi Choice, I don't recall which but it was in somebody's monthly column. Can anybody shed some light on this listening test? Maybe some of our UK friends, here? Teresa?

 

Not sure, but I think maybe this comparison of 44 and 88 khz rates is what you have in mind. In any case, interesting info on the subject. You can download the 8 page article here:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257068631_Sampling_Rate_Discrimination_441_kHz_vs_882_kHz

 

or it is available via Google +.