How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

[Ralf11]

... more difficult and interesting questions, such as whether a difference that isn't consciously audible for you may nevertheless subconsciously affect your enjoyment.

 

time for some brain imaging studies

[Jud]

Your only making our point for us Jud. I didn't imply that going to 8x oversampling filters was un-engineered. Given the 48/24 PCM format and doing what it takes to reach results at the very edge of theoretical perfection is excellent engineering. They built black boxes that take the relatively low bit rate in, and put out near perfect results. What happens in between, delta-sigma etc etc. is the engineering part.

 

Now using DXD at 384 khz/24 bit is the sledge hammer approach. And for what can only be called minimal or perhaps non-existent benefits. The mis-guided purist idea that since we end up at 384 somewhere anyway, we might as well just do 384 khz is the issue.

Do the saved bits matter? I live in a suburban area with 6 mbps internet near a town of 150k people. You only get close to that between 1 am and 6 am. Otherwise about half. On Sundays and holidays you get sporadic 400 k service. So no at least for some of us redbook is not yet an artefact of history. And if redbook or slightly beyond redbook is done well enough there is nothing audible to gain, then there is nothing audible to gain. An idea that doesn't market well.

 

What about multi-channel? I don't find multi-channel an incredible advancement. It is however a good solid genuine improvement which one has no trouble whatsoever hearing as such. Should I go 384 khz for stereo or with similar bandwidth uncompressed 7.1 multi-channel with 48 khz for each channel? Heck we'll just do 384 multi-channel or DSD 256 as Miska has already told us it works fine. In fact I see no reason not to just bump to DSD512, you know, just to be sure. DSD1024 will be relatively available in 3 years time I believe. Maybe a bit soon for that yet. It will take time, but we'll get to that 20 ghz I mentioned earlier.

 

Certainly no one is going to take your RedBook away. For that matter, if like many people who've been tested you can't tell a difference between RedBook and mp3, you can save even more bandwidth. (Being perfectly serious, not specious.) But if you're in my situation, then I think it's nice to have a choice of resolutions, filtering, and modulation.

 

Regarding the part of your response I underlined - I really don't understand why doing *less* decimation to the signal (again, as a choice for those who don't need to save bandwidth) is a "sledgehammer" approach, or why we should all depend on oversampling at the PC/playback end instead of just letting that less decimated signal through to the modulators. Some folks say they can hear a difference, some folks don't - let everyone choose what they prefer.

[Jud]

time for some brain imaging studies

 

There is actually a reasonably famous study on a very similar issue. It did not require anything as sophisticated as brain imaging.

 

 

There was also a brain imaging study regarding subconscious audibility of ultrasonics as related to enjoyment of music, but it is controversial. Apparently the results haven't been replicated.

[Jud]

How can anyone claim music format A is more accurate than format B, or DAC A is more accurate than DAC B by simply listening? Further complications arise because no variable can be isolated- we listen through a system of boxes and wires, and we all have unique listening rooms. I would submit not even the musicians or the recording engineer could tell us whether something is accurate by listening.

 

We can (and should) measure everything, and those measurements can be very helpful, but unfortunately those measurements don't provide a complete map.

 

 

See e.g. A Tale of Two Speakers | Stereophile.com

 

 

We can listen and make a subjective determination whether something sounds more real or more appealing, but we can't know if what we are hearing is "accurate" to the recorded event. Yet, people make these accuracy claims all of the time.

 

Of course, if I am missing something here, please, someone "show me the light".

 

This is a very interesting topic, which I don't have time to do justice to this evening.

 

Hopefully tomorrow.

[semente]

We can listen and make a subjective determination whether something sounds more real or more appealing, but we can't know if what we are hearing is "accurate" to the recorded event. Yet, people make these accuracy claims all of the time.

 

In my opinion there is no such thing as accuracy to the recorded event; but there can be (a reasonably) accurate reproduction of the recorded signal, also called high fidelity reproduction of recorded music or "garbage in, garbage out".

 

Speakers (and cartridges) are the worst offenders when it comes to (in)accuracy...

 

R

[Ralf11]

that's because they are transducers...

[Miska]

Depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance. With sizes and distances common in most homes, even 1080p is beyond what most people are able to resolve. Besides, most streaming content doesn't take full advantage of 1080p. The difference between Netflix and a good Bluray can be quite striking.

 

I have 2.5 meters and 50" 4K TV. I'm not so much interested on movies, because I don't watch much movies. But I use it for watching photos taken with the DSLR. And I can tell that there's a pretty huge difference between 1080p and 4K versions. And yeah, different image scaling algorithms also make difference (regardless of display).

[Miska]

Speakers (and cartridges) are the worst offenders when it comes to (in)accuracy...

 

...and room acoustics... But performance can be improved quite a lot with digital room/speaker correction.

[r_w]

TBF most recordings aren't good enough to warrant massive resolution / bandwidth... so for that huge majority it's probably best not to spoil your enjoyment of that subject material by telling yourself it's not as good as it could have been because the file size isn't half a Gig.

 

... that's probably about where I am now with it. I would say enjoy the great composition, playing, singing, production that 'turns your pages', don't search for great recordings of crap music or performance.

 

:-)

[mansr]

I have 2.5 meters and 50" 4K TV. I'm not so much interested on movies, because I don't watch much movies. But I use it for watching photos taken with the DSLR. And I can tell that there's a pretty huge difference between 1080p and 4K versions. And yeah, different image scaling algorithms also make difference (regardless of display).

At that size and distance seeing a difference is no surprise.

[Ralf11]

ok ok, you guys want to talk TV... I appreciate the 4k nil benefit argument, but HDR does matter and AFAIK can only be had on a 4k TV...

 

I also use my TV for photo display - my Apple TV streams a group of them over WiFi while playing from my iTunes collection... it is simple, cheap ($40 refurb), effective...

[gmgraves]

Re: comparing classical... see if you can do the same experiment on an Auralic VEGA?

 

Unfortunately, I don't have an Auralic Vega. I have a Schiit Modi2 Multibit and am waiting on delivery of a Schiit Yggdrasil multi-bit true ladder DAC. As far as I can see, the Vega is a Delta-Sigma DAC in which I currently have no interest. On the other hand, my comment to which you are responding, is not an experiment, it's just fact. A 24 (or 32)-bit DAC, if you play a 16-bit Red Book file through it, will actually sound better than through a 16-bit DAC because the filtering on the higher-bit DAC is better and most modern DACs seem to up-convert 16-bit material to 24-bit anyway.

 

... if someone want to make available 2 files of classical 16/44 and hires, I'll try it out.

 

Probably not a reliable test. You don't know what the difference is between the mastering moves applied to the 16-bit and the 24-bit versions. I have a number of "hybrid" SACDs and in all of them, the Red Book and the SACD layer's versions of the same performance sound significantly different. I also have several BMG (RCA) hybrid discs and their JVC XRCD (Red Book) counterparts. Not only does the Red Book layer on the hybrid disc sound different from the SACD layer, but the JVC XRCD sounds different from the Red Book layer on the SACD! They should sound the same, but they don't!. In fact, in all cases, the XRCD version not only sounds different from SACD remastering, but it sounds BETTER and by a long shot! No, in remastering for different formats, there's too much slip twixt the cup and the lip to make any experiment like you propose a valid comparison.

 

Luckily the UK is also a free country.

:-)

 

Yes the UK is free, in as much as any of us are free anymore. I fear that the experiment of Democracy is quickly dying everywhere it's practiced. As the world becomes more and more crowded, freedoms will become more and more curtailed. In many places some freedoms are already given only lip service, and don't actually exist like they used to.

[Maldur]

if you play a 16-bit Red Book file through it, will actually sound better than through a 16-bit DAC because the filtering on the higher-bit DAC is better and most modern DACs seem to up-convert 16-bit material to 24-bit anyway.

 

Can You show (or at least tell) how the filtering differs when it is feed from 16/44 or 24/44 signal?

[mansr]

Can You show (or at least tell) how the filtering differs when it is feed from 16/44 or 24/44 signal?

 

A typical DAC will pad input of any size to it's internal processing size and use the same filters for everything. A 16-bit-only DAC likely uses lower precision calculations or there'd be no reason to restrict it to 16 bits in the first place.

[Maldur]

If filtering is the same for everything, how Redbook sound better due filtering as gmgraves says? Maybe we can wait answer from gmgraves, I hope .

[mansr]

If filtering is the same for everything, how Redbook sound better due filtering as gmgraves says? Maybe we can wait answer from gmgraves, I hope .

 

He said 16-bit data sounds better through a 24-bit capable DAC since it has superior filtering to a DAC limited to 16 bits. He did not say that 16-bit sounds better than 24-bit.

[Maldur]

I've read that page a few time over the years and always come to the conclusion that Monty wants to have it both ways.

 

1. High resolution is actually harmful and this can be heard.

 

From the site:

 

1. 192kHz considered harmful192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

 

 

I wonder what Monty (or someone else) says about higher rate DSD? It is again (very) harmful because of extra high sample rate?

[Maldur]

He said 16-bit data sounds better through a 24-bit capable DAC since it has superior filtering to a DAC limited to 16 bits. He did not say that 16-bit sounds better than 24-bit.

Indeed. I am not well enough, but I improve I hope. I misread that:

if you play a 16-bit Red Book file through it, will actually sound better than through a 16-bit DAC because the filtering on the higher-bit DAC is better and ...

Sorry, gmgraves.

[tailspn]

I wonder what Monty (or someone else) says about higher rate DSD? It is again (very) harmful because of extra high sample rate?

 

No, for there are no samples in DSD, only in PCM. DSD is an analog modulation process of a bit clock which results in a analog bit stream whose bit density is directly proportional to the percentage of modulation (0-100%). That modulation level is proportional to the modulating signal level with 50% specified as 0dB. The higher the bit clock rate the better, for the more continuous (resolution) the bit stream becomes relative to the bandwidth of the modulating signal.

 

An additional positive benefit is that the first lobe of the modulation noise becoming apparent increases in frequency proportionally to the higher clock/bit rate. That's the bandwidth between DC and the first appearance (measureable/perceivable/consequential whatever) of the uncorrelated white noise which accompanies the modulation process.

[audiventory]

It is again (very) harmful because of extra high sample rate?

 

High sample rates may be harmful if traditional resampling or full band playback used.

 

But if used optimized mode (cutting ultrasound) with combination of high sample rate, there we have both:

 

1. minimized intermodulation products in audible range and

 

2. preferable mode of low frequency analog filter of DAC.

 

In the video we can hear how the optimizing (removing ultrasound) impact to audible range for some conditions. I don't know exactly where point of intermodulation in the scheme software-driver-hardware.

The experiment may be considered as model of hardware playback too.

 

[Maldur]

Thank you, Tom. When I wrote that idea (DSD is analog, modulated with clock signal) in my own forum some years ago (2011 I belive), then there was too many enthusiasts, who wanted me to burn to death like middle-century sorcerer . Some are remains even now :).

So, I are agree with you Tom, as usual.

But who knows what Monty understands, how interprets this fenomen called DSD...

 

Also thank you Yuri. Can you show spectrum from this noisier file?

[Sal1950]

TBF most recordings aren't good enough to warrant massive resolution / bandwidth... so for that huge majority it's probably best not to spoil your enjoyment of that subject material by telling yourself it's not as good as it could have been because the file size isn't half a Gig.

... that's probably about where I am now with it. I would say enjoy the great composition, playing, singing, production that 'turns your pages', don't search for great recordings of crap music or performance.

:-)

 

+1,

That's about the whole story in a nutshell.

[davide256]

+1,

That's about the whole story in a nutshell.

+2

Often at audio shows I hear music used that doesn't even cross the information density limits of CD format. DSD resonates for me with large orchestral performances but I can't really hear a difference with 3 player interpretive jazz pieces.

[audiventory]

Can you show spectrum from this noisier file?

 

Unfortunatelly, I can't find the researched file. I suppose there was DSD's spectrum limited by half of sample rate.

[Miska]

But if used optimized mode (cutting ultrasound) with combination of high sample rate

 

I would never do that, because it removes hires from the hires - slows down transients.

 

I have invested money and effort to have wide band capable system and don't want to spoil it.

 

But each to their own.