Why computer audio ?

[firedog]

Steve-

 

I agree about redbook - clearly the most important factor in the final sound is the quality of the recording and mastering. If done well, CD's can sound great.

 

But what were you referring to when you said:

 

"Just listen to the new Rolling Stones Let it Bleed remaster. Not perfect, but a LOT better than the original. I had the vinyl when I was a kid and it was never like this."

 

Are you referring to the vinyl releases? If not the latest remaster I can find on CD of Let it Bleed is from 2002. Is there something newer?

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Plain Redbook 16/44 CD can indeed sound quite wonderful, provided a good original recording and good mastering... and provided you don't compare it to the same recording (same mastering) at higher resolution.

 

A 24/96 version will reveal the coarsening of harmonics and defocussing of spatial information engendered by the lower res version.

 

At 24/192, properly done, a threshold is crossed and (to my ears) we're no longer in the realm of "good digitial" (or "good analog"); things start sounding like the input signal in several important ways.

 

One example from the same recording (one I made), same mastering (ditto) at all three rates can be found at

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

While I'm very happy with the CD, if you listen to the 24/192 (assuming a DAC that can do 24/192; some that claim it can do it better than others), then step down to the 24/96, then step down to 16/44, you'll hear things progressively roughen and cloud up in comparison to the 192. At least that's what I hear, in this and every other comparison I've made.

 

Just my perspective of course.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Hey Barry, this is great. I'm downloading the files right now, and will compare them later today and let you honestly know.

 

Can you tell me, is there anything done to the higher res which is not done to the 44.1 ? You know, low pass filtering and the like ... I mean, before I come up with 44.1 sounding better, something has to be blamed ...

 

Sidenote (or not) : I have quite a pile of hires, and out of all I could compare because I also have it in 16/44.1 I think I found one sounding better than the 16/44.1 version.

 

Ah, this thread was not about hires.

Oh well ... :-)

Peter

 

[bdiament]

Hi Peter,

 

"...Can you tell me, is there anything done to the higher res which is not done to the 44.1 ? You know, low pass filtering and the like ... I mean, before I come up with 44.1 sounding better, something has to be blamed ......

 

I think the results will be partly dependent on a few things outside of the files themselves (and how they sound):

1. The listener (I find different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound)

2. Their system and how it is set up (speakers, positioning, clean AC, etc.)

3. In some ways a subset of #2, the DAC. In my experience, many DACs with a "24/192" spec simply don't have clocking and analog stages that are up to the increased demands of 4x rates (i.e. 176.4 and 192k). These (some pro units included) will actually perform better, to my ears, at 96k than they will at the higher rates. But given a DAC that can truly do 192, I think the results will be clear.

 

To answer your question, the recording was done with a simple stereo array, consisting of a matched pair of omni mics (QTC-1s), separated by a baffle of my own design. So you have one mic per playback channel. There were no overdubs, no mix, no EQ, no compression, no filtering of any kind and no other processing. This is the output of the microphones as captured by the ULN-8 (via a pair of Nordost Valkyra mic cables).

 

The 96k version was created the best way I know to create a 24/96k file, which was from the 24/192 original, with the sample rate converted by iZotope's 64-bit SRC algorithm.

 

Similarly, the CD version (16/44) was created the best way I know to create a CD master, which was from the 24/192 original, with the sample rate converted by iZotope's 64-bit SRC and the result decimated to 16-bit using iZotope's MBIT+ dither/noise shaping algorithm.

 

In all cases, the same master was used to create the results. No adjustments were made, etc.

 

Enjoy!

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[Tipper]

I’ve still yet to find anyone who can differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192 through a retail system using speakers rather than headphones and a very high bandwidth amplifier, which is at least theoretically possible.

Of course, there are plenty in the business of selling you such hi res tracks and 24/192 capable Dacs who will tell you they can and what’s more, you can too if you buy their equipment.

My suggestion, find out what you can actually hear, have your hearing tested.

Check what your equipment can reproduce and where the noise floor is.

Measure the noise floor in your listening environment.

Do you still think you can hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192?

 

Hopefully, after this we can put this nonsense to bed but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

[PeterSt]

My suggestion, find out what you can actually hear, have your hearing tested.

 

Haha, it is not about that. It is about knowing what to listen for. If you were here I could point it out, and right after that you can do it too. It really is easy.

But I can't *tell* it - I mean without listening at the same time.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: I don't say that anyone will perceive differences in any system, so stuff about noise floor (although not exactly that) does matter.

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Tipper,

 

"...I’ve still yet to find anyone who can differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192 through a retail system using speakers rather than headphones and a very high bandwidth amplifier, which is at least theoretically possible..."

 

Not sure what you mean by a "retail system".

Does a pair of Magnepan 3.6s powered by Outlaw 2200 amps along with a pair of Outlaw LFM1-EX subs, call connected with Nordost cables and fed from a Metric Halo ULN-8 qualify?

 

For my ears, the jump from 24/96 to 24/192 is an appreciably larger one than the jump from 16/44 to 24/96. As I've said elsewhere, I find a threshold is crossed and the results are what digital should have been when I first heard it in 1983. It no longer sounds like "good digital" or "good analog"; it sounds like my microphone feed. Good as 24/96 is, I can't say the same thing about that, which to me, sounds like "great digital".

 

As I've also said repeatedly, my experience with numerous DACs suggests that many with a "192k" spec don't perform up to the potential of that sample rate. I suspect the increased demands on clocking and on the analog stages are showing inadequacies in many designs (including some pro units), which sound better (i.e. truer to the input) at 96k than they do at 192k.

 

Whether an individual hears it or not will depend on the individual, their system, its setup, etc. etc. So references to "putting this nonsense to bed" may be a matter of perspective. For folks who don't hear it (or whose systems won't resolve it), the "nonsense" is the higher sample rates. For those who do hear it, the "nonsense" is those folks who believe their own personal experience must reflect that of others.

 

Just my perspective but once I heard 192 through the ULN-8, I knew I wasn't going to record any other way. And oddly - at least to me - one of the areas I find to benefit enormously from 192 (aside from overall focus) is the low frequencies.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[audioengr]

"If not the latest remaster I can find on CD of Let it Bleed is from 2002. Is there something newer?"

 

No, its the DSD remastered version of 2002.

 

Steve N.

 

[audioengr]

"Do you still think you can hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192?"

 

Sure. I have both versions of Lush Life and the 192 sounds less grainy. I played them both for Steven Stone of TAS at RMAF and he agreed. Our system was very resolving. Got best of show.

 

If you are looking to hear this difference in an audio salon set-up by salesman, forget it. Find a system that is thoughtfully assembled by someone who can afford it, or go to an audio club meet.

 

Barry said:

"As I've also said repeatedly, my experience with numerous DACs suggests that many with a "192k" spec don't perform up to the potential of that sample rate."

 

I've also had this experience. If you look at the 192 digital filtering and noise figures for many DACs, it is obvious that 192 was not a high priority in the design process.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

[Tipper]

Its pointless going over this again so I’ll just point you too the original debate.

I’m not a complete objectivist but there are some things that are so unlikely that claims to the contrary really need some form of “scientific” testing to prove. So far, to the best of my knowledge this particular issue has so much more evidence against than for, that the probability is that in a “scientific” test the difference between the two frequency samples is unlikely to be correctly identified. To describe such a difference as obvious is a bit rash imo.

I spent some time attempting to differentiate between the two frequency rates on a number of “resolving” system. My system is more of an indication of my financial circumstances than of my knowledge and experience of what a “good” system can sound like.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/2496-Above

http://www.dspguide.com/

There are always the few who will claim that those who can’t hear the difference are either deaf or don’t have a sufficiently resolving system; you get this with every contentious issue within audiophilia.

Strangely, when in other areas where such contention has been an issue and the component and advocate have gone to trial, so to speak, the verdict, not proven has been the best hope for the advocate with Charlatan often the charge levied at the end of the trial.

 

It’s also pointless giving details of your system because the likelihood of me having heard that particular combination in the environment you listen to it in is virtually nil. However, I’m sure it makes a very nice sound

 

If you Barry believe you can hear the difference, that’s fine. I can neither dispute nor disprove either on an internet forum and wouldn’t waste my time trying to do so.

However, given the dire straights the “audiophile” industry find themselves in, some of the more far fetched claims revolving around extremely expensive components and doubtful claims might be better left unpublished; I believe they just tend to reinforce the view that Hi end audio is the province of deluded men over 50 with suspect hearing.

 

 

[Jim Smith]

Hi Barry,

 

I have a friend who is well known in the recording industry who makes similar statements - "same as mic feed" for 24/192.

 

You said, "For my ears, the jump from 24/96 to 24/192 is an appreciably larger one than the jump from 16/44 to 24/96 ... Good as 24/96 is, I can't say the same thing about that, which to me, sounds like "great digital".

 

I've wondered how a huge order in magnitude of resolution improvement(16 to 24 Bits) can have less effect than a simple increase in frequency response (from 48K to 96K)?

 

Love to hear your viewpoint.

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Jim,

 

"...I've wondered how a huge order in magnitude of resolution improvement(16 to 24 Bits) can have less effect than a simple increase in frequency response (from 48K to 96K)?..."

 

No doubt, the additional resolution added by 8 more bits is quite significant.

To use the numbers in your example, I would probably agree the jump to 24-bit is more significant than going from 48k (?) to 96k. But the jump to 192k is a whole 'nother experience from my perspective. Not to diminish the importance of 24-bit but I consider this a given; I see 16-bit as the "cassette" (perhaps the 8-track ;-}) of the digital world.

 

I think it is a mistake to look at the sample rate change as a mere change (or extension) in frequency response. The change in filter location and steepness requirements may in the end, be more responsible for the audible improvements than the extension in frequency (though I wouldn't dismiss its importance as well).

 

In addition to the changes to the filter, my experience has shown me that well designed wide band analog stages do a lot for sound quality too. Not simply for bandwidth but more importantly for the temporal response of the circuitry (i.e. it is better at tracing the shape of the wave).

 

Ultimately though, the above is simply supposition on my part as to exactly what is responsible for the audible improvements of going to 192k. The extended treble certainly doesn't explain the improvements I hear in the bass. So, I think there is more to it than is evident on the surface; perhaps more to it than is currently known by our best designers. (After all, the 22.05k bandwidth of a CD should, in theory be more than adequate to cover a string bass. But it doesn't sound the same at CD rates as it does at 192k.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Jim Smith]

So, in a nutshell, you think that moving the filter up significantly may be a big part of the difference?

 

We're talking about a bandwidth that was 48k (96k sampling rate) moving up to 96k bandwidth making more of a difference than going from 16 bit to 24 bit.

 

I appreciate your input. I've heard this position stated before, but I admit it's hard to see how moving the filter up can compare to a huge increase in resolution.

 

Of course, when I actually hear it here, I should know and not have to wonder any more.

 

I've been waiting to have the QB-9 upgraded to 192k, and now I'm even more interested.

 

 

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I generally prefer computer audio, but I'd like to add the Oppo BDP-83 to jdjaye's excellent list of disc spinners. For the money, it does a superb job with CDs and also opens the world of hi-res discs. Reasonable men may disagree about whether the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 (put me in the 24/192 camp), but there's a general consensus that both sound better than 16 bit - except, of course, the lunatic fringe. It's just gone out of production, but there should be a deluge on eBay and Audiogon from people buying the new model. As a bonus, the video quality is unsurpassed.

 

I generally echo Barry's conclusions, although my experience with the Ayre QB-9 has made me a believer in asynchronous USB. HRT makes a line of inexpensive DACs that have received some good press. Doubt remains as to whether they are truly asynchronous.

 

If it was me, I would upgrade my Naim stuff last. Other areas of audio technology have advanced faster than amplification, and Naim has generally been ahead of the game anyway.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Jim,

 

"...So, in a nutshell, you think that moving the filter up significantly may be a big part of the difference?..."

 

A part, yes. Not the whole difference. I think it is more complex than that.

 

To my ears, going from 16 to 24 bit is not the only significant increase in resolution. A further increase is achieved with the higher sample rates.

 

In view of a good number of DACs in my experience not being able to handle 192 well in spite of their spec sheets, I would suggest listening to several DACs before reaching any conclusions about what 192 can or cannot achieve. (Unless of course the first DAC you listen to nails it. ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[PeterSt]

Dear Barry,

 

It is a bit of a pitty that you expressed about bass and 192 yourself before I could, so now it looks like I'm echoing you. But I really am not ...

 

I listened to your tracks and compared them;

 

Because you are keen to emphasize the importance of the DAC (I would do the same ! ... which will become obvious from this post) let me explain about that first, besides I'm using a most resolving system (the best I ever heard anywhere, but that's just to indicate it can't be the worst);

 

Of course this is that DAC you heard me talk about more often (and as often in between the lines) I've been working on the past two years with the sheer one objective : be the best there is. It's multibit NOS 24/384 and measures 0.002% THD+N at 384, and one of the finest features (for my further work on all this audio stuff) is that electrically all is 100% the same at playing 16/44.1 or 24/352.8 and all the other rates in between or beyond. Also, the driver buffer sizes are always the same, and the only thing where a difference might exist is in the playback software, which is virtual only, because all is preprocessed and plays from memory in full.

 

Key is, that when I play 16/44.1 this is filtered in the software, which comes down to upsampled to 32/352.8. The filtering is an interpolation algorithm and contrary to normal filtering it is lossless. This means I can go back from the upsampled material to 16/44.1 and end up with the original 16/44.1 100%. The "lossless" says completely nothing, but it prooves it's interpolation, or otherwise lossless would be totally impossible. It also should indicate that high hopes for outbettering the 16/44.1 for resolution are justified, because at least the original samples are still there in the (upsampled) end result. In the end this is not only a filter, but also implies better resolution. Always faked, but still better than 16/44.1, like a video upscaler clearly will show better after upscaling.

 

As soon as something happened to the hires material, which did not happen to the 16/44.1, chances are very fair that my upsampled 16/44.1 sounds better than the hires "derival". So now you know why I asked the question about this.

 

At last, on to the comparison.

 

Well, in both cases 16/44.1 sounded the best ...

 

No, don't be in a shock, or think I must be completely crazy otherwise, because this is not a "normal" situation. At least that's what I think, knowing the origin and your explanations. Still dangerous, because any downsampler -might it be iZotope or whatever else- is out of our control, and in the end nothing much different from any normal filtering means which all do not work in the first place (my saying). But, original = original (master), and if you say the 24/192 is the master, it just is (btw, only one of the tracks carried a 192 version).

 

Let me start at the other end now first;

I started off with the 16/44.1 version of the one which also has 24/96 and 24/192 (sr002). Btw, before actual listening, I noticed the first few seconds being a good measure for comparing the resolution, and so compared those first few seconds quickly first amongst the 3 versions. I found no difference, which was as expected (for me). That is, if the 96 and 192 are not mangled with, they should sound the same. This did.

So next I listened to the track throughout, the 16/44.1 first.

 

What I noticed is the difficulty with the "room", which btw is even more apparent with the sr001 track. It is too less dampened to make a "best" recording. If this is not the case at all, I'll say I'm sorry for the statement. It's your job, not mine. But, it is important for the outcome ...

 

Not important for the comparison, was my notice of the kind of kukuu instrument, which goes from the right speaker at ku (first note) and from the middle at kuu (second, lower note). How ? are these two instruments ? was the artist moving ? is my system not linear ? It just intrigued me.

 

Next what occurred to me at playing the 192 is that the ("background") singers are drawn a bit more to the right compared with the 44.1. Slightly, but still.

 

A more important one seems to be my lack of attention / concentration with the 192. I just couldn't. No problem with the 44.1.

 

But now on to what it really is about, and what really brought a difference : the lower frequencies;

While I couldn't hear a real difference in stage, layering, resolution, I could hear a too messy sound from the hires pieces; The guitar (especially the beginning) from sr001 tends to show better resolution, but it gets lost in the hall of the room. The instrument playing the bass there, better was not there in the first place (too messy) but it also destroys the other musicians. With the 44.1 it is doable, but with 96 it is not. Same with the sr002; the bass more towards the end lost its air and starts to boom. Not so with the 44.1.

 

So here we have the strange situation that I'm fairly sure the 192 should be better (from all theories), but coincidentally doesn't work out just *because* something is better (the bass).

Now, Barry, if you can only agree that the room actually was too critical here (both tracks), it will only be a matter of what you hear through your system and what I hear through mine, in order to just let if fail here and be allright at yours'.

But I must add something here :

 

It is known and recognized by everybody since it happened, that my software unveils background noise you can't imagine. When it happened for the first time I couldn't even understand what happened, but this is about walking on the stage, moving away mics, breathing, etc. And just because this is about "far" objects, I can imagine that your room in this case pronounces more than you wanted *and* heard through headphones.

 

Ok, although this may be interesting to chat about, it's all beside the subject. The subject for these few posts was : will 192 be worse (as how I implied it). Well, in your case it at least is not, but this is rare. Rare in my "collection" of hires, which almost all fail miserably (I have some 350). Still in this case I again will prefer the 44.1. It is the knowledge of the background I shouldn't and merely look into my system (try to turn away some bass or something), if I only didn't hear that room so much. So I rather let my system be as always.

But it also isn't the other way around; there is no way 16/44.1 is bad or more rough or shows less resolution. Less good bass maybe as you said it yourself.

 

I know, you weren't talking about upsampled 44.1, but even when you implied NOS and 44.1 it still wouldn't go without decent filtering, which I apply in the end and we call that "upsampling". Leave that out and we'd have plain 44.1 with up to 30% THD depending on the frequency. Although still better sounding than most OS, there now *will* be a difference with hires, just because with hires indirectly that filter has been applied again. And indeed, looking at it from this angle, 96 sure isn't enough. 192 is still critical (because natural frequencies may exist up to over half of that). 384 should be enough.

 

Thanks for the challenge and offering a nice comparison. I'm sure I learned from it.

Peter

 

[ummaya]

If it was me, I would upgrade my Naim stuff last

 

Hi Gregor,

 

The Naim stuff is being serviced and upgraded right now. The reason for the upgrade is to have an amplifier that can drive the Sara more easily than it did until today. When I purchase my system in 1985 I picked excellent elements but that did not work well together. The Naim 42/110 combo was great by itself but not powerful enough to efficiently drive demanding speakers like the Saras. The bad choice was my mistake.

 

Among all the speakers I auditioned then, the Saras where the one that impressed me the most and I badly wanted them. I did not know that you never listen to a pair of speakers but to a whole system: speakers, amplifier, turntable or CD player and of course the room where the audition takes place. The dealer warned me that the 42/110 was not the best set to drive the Sara like the more powerful amplifiers used during the audition did. I decided to pick the Saras anyway and upgrade the amplifier in the near future, which I never did. I am the one to blame for the wrong choice, but what is done is done.

 

Today, financially, I have not the same possibility than when I purchased my system in 1985 and I will not be able to spend, and by far, the same amount of money on my system than in the past. I have to manage to get the best that I can with the elements I already have + a budget of about $1000. Among my options:

 

 

Option 1:

Keep the Saras and have them checked and serviced

Have the the NAC42 serviced and upgraded to 42.5 + add an external power supply and upgrade /tweak of the NAP110

Buy a DAC and until I can buy a new computer use my DVD player (instead of a cheap CD player). All that cover $1000.

 

 

Option 2:

Sell the Saras for which I may get around $400.

Service the 42/110 without upgrade

Buy a DAC and use my DVD player

All that will leave me with more or less $500 + the $400 (from selling the Saras) to buy a new or a second hand pair of speakers that my 42/110 could drive easily.

 

Option 3:

Sell the Saras and Naim 42/110 for about $700 at best.

Get an entire high quality new system with my $1000+ about $700

I doubt that with $1700 I can buy a entire new system that will be better than with the two first options.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Peter,

 

..."btw, only one of the tracks carried a 192 version..."

 

This is correct. "Equinox" was recorded at 24/192; "Lift" was recorded at 24/96, before there was a ULN-8, with 192 capability.

 

 

"...What I noticed is the difficulty with the "room", which btw is even more apparent with the sr001 track. It is too less dampened to make a "best" recording...

 

The room for each project is selected to "fit" the music. "Lift" was recorded in a small church, which was a more reverberant space than the small auditorium I selected for recording "Equinox".

 

If the listener an expectation of what an album "should" sound like before they've listened to the album, the sound may end up not fitting their expectation. This is particularly true if most of what they listen to is typical multiple close mic'd studio productions. Soundkeeper is the antithesis of such an approach, aiming instead to sound like what the listener would hear in the presence of the performance, in the venue in which the performance takes place. As the producer of the recording, "Lift" has exactly the type of room sound I intended for that album.

 

 

"...Not important for the comparison, was my notice of the kind of kukuu instrument, which goes from the right speaker at ku (first note) and from the middle at kuu (second, lower note). How ? are these two instruments ?..."

 

I'm not sure what you mean here but I believe you are talking about the conch shells. There are actually three of them. Jean is playing two different ones (different sizes/pitches) on the left and Markus is playing another on the right.

 

 

It sounds to me like you prefer the sound of the 16/44 versions in both cases. Personal preference is a personal call and I respect whatever your personal call is. My experience is very different. As I switch from the 24/192 to the 24/96 to the 16/44, I find what started as the same sound as my microphone feeds at the recording session first loses some focus, air and bass definition, in the step to 96, then becomes relatively clouded over as the rest of the air disappears, the space loses quite a bit of definition and instrumental harmonics coarsen in the step to 16/44.

 

My criterion for assessing "good", "better", "best" is not which I "like" but which sounds like what my microphones fed to the system. I don't suggest my criterion is better than using what one likes, other than it being "better" for me. But then, I was present at the sessions and the recordings were made to fulfill a vision I as producer/engineer had before making them.

 

Thank you for listening to the samples. I'm glad you enjoyed them.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Dale]

 

Gregor Samsa: "..I generally echo Barry's conclusions, although my experience with the Ayre QB-9 has made me a believer in asynchronous USB. HRT makes a line of inexpensive DACs that have received some good press. Doubt remains as to whether they are truly asynchronous.."

 

 

 

What doubt would that be - do you have any more info to explain why you say there are doubts about the implementation of asynchronous USB in the HRT DACs? I am certainly very happy with my HRT Music Streamer II+, although I'm sure that you get what you pay for and that it isn't as good as more expensive DACs like the Ayre QB-9.

 

 

 

Kevin Halverson, the designer of the HRT range talks about the asynchronous implementation in a 6moons review of the HRT Pro DAC. He says:

 

 

 

"As do all current Music Streamer models, the Pro utilizes asynchronous transfer protocol. It also supports adaptive synchronous transfers for very old PCs which do not support asynchronous USB. All current Streamer models including the Pro use native Audio Class 1.0 drivers which are present in all modern OS. With any modern computer, the Streamer II, II+ and Pro work in asynchronous mode at all times. For over a decade now, asynchronous transfer has been part of the audio specifications though until recently, it has only been implemented in professional products. All current HRT models support this capability"

 

 

 

 

"We chose the TAS1020B for our USB transceiver front end for all current Streamer models. This Texas Instruments part contains a general purpose micro section. That's where our own firmware/code is utilized."

 

 

 

 

"Our implementation was generated completely in house and not licensed from elsewhere. Our code is fully class compliant. Unlike any firmware from other manufacturers, ours includes a number of extremely sophisticated routines for error handling. Soon we will be releasing a firmware upgrade and desktop applet to allow the end user configuration options for the mode/s of operation [the screen captures below show the setup options]. Relative to Gordon Rankin's statement that the TAS1020B is "programmable to rates up to 24/96", we have successfully transported data at rates near 176.4kS/S with this device. Alas its PHY is limited to USB 1.1FS (Full Speed) which makes it less than an ideal choice for triple speed (or higher) audio applications. Our soon-to-be-released Music Streamer HD will initially support audio data rates of up to 192kS/s but with a planned future firmware upgrade would support up to 384kS/s."

 

 

[PeterSt]

Thank you for your additional comments and outlay Barry.

 

And please don't forget : although obviously all *will* be subject to personal likings, if we both do our jobs well, it really is not. A church is a church, and while picked for the purpose, it doesn't tell the "articulation" will be the best. So, I can only hope that you didn't perceive my speaking about "the room" as critics, but as a given fact on that moment - being more difficult for such a recording nevertheless; Go to a dead studio and you'll have nothing for atmosphere. So, that's all clear and nothing is wrong as such.

 

Again about personal likings not being in order, is the sheer impossibility of you ever perceiving the same as I do. I can't tell which is "better", but for 100% sure it will be (even very) different; you can have my software, but you can't have my DAC actually being an extension of the software (because no such thing exists that I know of).

 

In the far end, what I was suggesting, is whether it could be so that being there listening yourself all was critical, while at listening to the recording all was ok (and this is just about the 192 !).

 

On quite another subject, and it is just my interest (also for my own explanation of what I perceive), I wondered this :

 

Can't it be so, the way you record (which is the SoundKeeper principle I think) that quite heavy reflections which are there in the base (like a church will have them) can workout a kind of counter effective because of late reflections are more "caught" on the shells, so to speak ? (and may add up more).

 

If you don't feel much like responding again, please don't. But the only thing I am doing here is trying to improve on sound reproduction, and I'm trying to learn as much as I can to be ahead of things, where possible. And as you will have understood, this is a nice extension to that other thread, you know, the one with Cookie in it as well.

 

Thanks a lot,

Peter

 

[bdiament]

Hi Peter,

 

"...Can't it be so, the way you record (which is the SoundKeeper principle I think) that quite heavy reflections which are there in the base (like a church will have them) can workout a kind of counter effective because of late reflections are more "caught" on the shells, so to speak ? (and may add up more)..."

 

I suppose anything can be, depending on the perceptions of the listener.

This would also be true regarding whether the effects of the space are supportive of the music or "counter" to it.

 

Since I produce and engineer these recordings, I make the call as to whether the space -and the musician positions and mic positions within the space - support the vision I have for the recording. This call is made with significant input from the artist, whose vision for their music is an important part of the production and engineering decisions I make.

 

In the end, each listener makes their own call as to whether a given recording (musically as well as sonically) satisfies what they seek for their listening pleasure.

 

So, I make recordings to fit my vision of how I want to hear musical performances (my goal being to for the recording to "get out of the way" and bring the listener to the event, rather than bringing the event to the listener, which would very require different techniques and produce very different results).

 

The space in which an event takes place is, in my view, a critical part of the ultimate musical sound. The same performance in a different space would of course result in a very different musical sound. Each project is a musical and sonic adventure, different from the last.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[audioengr]

"The change in filter location and steepness requirements may in the end, be more responsible for the audible improvements than the extension in frequency (though I wouldn't dismiss its importance as well)."

 

This would make sense, however in the case of my comparison of 96 to 192, I used my own DAC, which has hard manual sets on the digital filtering. It was identical for both cases. I usually leave it at the highest roll-off.

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

[hifitubes]

Back to the topic of the OP....usability, not "laziness", is scaled to incredible degree when using a well-engineered piece of organizational software like J. River.

 

Adding a computer, turns ones collection into an archive with limitless possibilities. One view scheme, "Song Search", I worked out last year. Of course, you can do any number of simple or comlicated expression searches in JRMC, but this simple one lets you see all the respective albums any particular song title has appeared on:

 

[*]

 

Some more various screenshots here.