optimize
I don’t think that the medium CD has done ANY development since it it were defined by Sony and Philips. A fun fact is that they defined the CD and its specifications. Then the CD manufacturer needed to manufacture a CD that meet the specifications. But the same went for the CD drive manufacturers they need to be able to read a CD that meet the specifications.
>>>>Uh, optimize, it’s not the CD that’s the problem, it’s the CD player that’s the problem. Hel-loo! There is an extraordinary amount of information on the CD. You just can’t hear it properly or completely because the CD players are all pieces of junk. Yes, I know what some of you are thinking, but my system sounds fabulous! I’ll spare DACs my wrath since by the time the audio signal gets to the DAC it’s too late! Hel-loo!
|
I think bit rate and sample rate are increasing because the chip manufactures like Ti and Sabre are progressing, it cant be stopped. Chips will increase in bits and frequency and oems will source newer chips as time marches on. I read somwehere that the higher bit/sample rates make it easier on the designers simply due to mathematical capabilities more room for algorithms to run.
|
I heard a big system recently for which the error correction function on the CD player was turned OFF. WOW. If only you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears. The trick is the CD surfaces have to be laboratory grade clean, otherwise the player shuts down.
|
Optimize,
You are technically correct and I misspoke, so let me clarify. Yes the red book format has remained the same as the parameters which define it are static. What I really was trying to explain are the two things that have changed over the course of the consumer digital lifespan namely;
1) recording and mastering engineers (the good ones anyway)have at their disposal better front end A/D equipment and have developed processes and systems which allow for better sounding music to get into the digital medium to start with and,
2) the consumer equipment performing the D/A conversion has gotten MILES better particularly in the past 5-7 years or so.
None of this should be surprising as the format matures and I’m certain digital has only begun its long and exciting optimization process. Looking to analogue which has been around probably 3 times as long as digital yet continues to get better as technology progresses.
|
Just want to chime in here and (again) point out... that the best “audio reproduction” will always be beholden it’s source!!! The original audio capture (and all the attention to details) in that initial “record”, is the essence we all try to preserve through our audio playback chain. As mentioned earlier... Tony Manasian’s exquisite and pure music recordings are special “reference audio” to be (enjoyed!) but also give you one of the MOST accurate windows, into the nuances of your (individual) playback-reproduction chain!
If you are an audiophile, you will want to experience these sonic gems, on your own system! |
What about the newer advances in physical media-shm discs from japan as well as the gold disc. These should reduce the read error rate-no? |
I have the SHM SACD version of Aja. Can barely stand to listen it, actually I can’t stand to listen to it. Atrocious sound putting it mildly. My CD version or vinyl versions sound demonstrably better. Based on this one experience I would never purchase another product from SHM. |
FWIW, just picked this up from a Google search:
Lindell B. Jones Jr., Long-time music lover. Met a handful of rock/pop stars.Answered 1 year ago · Author has 156 answers and 144.5K answer viewsNot that can actually be heard under ordinary circumstances. Using 16 bit samples gives you 65,536 (2^16) possible values to which any given sample in an audio signal can be rounded. Using 24 bit samples gives you 16,777,216 (2^24) possible values, or 256 possibilities for each possibility with 16 bit. That is a huge difference on paper, but not to your ears. The rounding of samples to the nearest possibility creates what’s called quantization noise. With 16 bit, the dynamic range for the quantization noise is 96 dB. That’s the difference between the loudest sound that can be recorded and the threshold at which you can just barely hear any quantization noise. With 24 bit, the dynamic range is 144 dB. Now, consider that a very quiet room in a typical home has about 30 dB of background noise. That means that to hear any quantization noise on your 16 bit recording (e.g. a normal CD), you’d have to turn the volume up so that the loudest sounds are at 126 dB. That’s about the threshold of pain for most people. So unless you plan on playing your music so loudly that it makes your ears hurt (and you have equipment that can produce that volume), 16 bits is plenty. By the way, the 174 dB you’d need to hear quantization noise with 24 bit is loud enough to literally KILL you! If there’s an audible difference between a 16 bit and 24 bit recording, it is most likely because the 24 bit one was mastered better, as is often the case. But 16 bits is generally more than sufficient within the limits of human hearing.
See www DOT quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-in-audio-accessories No comment from me other than it is just one gent's opinion. And for the sale of full disclosure, I have never critically compared redbook CD (16 bit/44.1kHZ) to other hi-rez formats. Not sure this is relevant, but my ARC CD-9SE can oversample my redbook CD playback to 176.4kHZ. Not sure the output sounds all that much better that just playing the CD at the native 44.1kHZ sampling rate. That said, I have critically compared my CD-9SE playing back redbook CDs source to vinyl played off my turntable. IMO, vinyl "usually" sounds better, but not always. I surmise that the SQ of the recording stamped onto the media (i.e., a CD versus an LP) can make a big difference in what comes out of the speakers. For example, I recall A/B'ing a track on a CD of John Mellencamp's greatest hits to the same song on a Mellencamp record. Interestingly, IMO, it was a photo finish of which format sounded better. Maybe in the end, it may come down to garbage-in/garbage-out. What I am interested in exploring is the DAC side of my Ref CD-9SE for streaming. Just have to get the courage and time to dip my toes into the streaming waters. Interesting thread. I'll stay tuned. |
|
Whereas hi-res recordings bring little advantage over well recorded and mastered redbook, upsampling redbook to higher sampling rates has real advantages in digital to analogue conversion. This applies obviously only to delta sigma dacs. R2R dacs conversely have to contend with euphonic distortion which is often referred to as analogue sounding. |
@antigrunge2 - my ARC Ref 9SE can upsample redbook playback to 176.4kHz. I tried it several times and cannot say it really sounds better overall than native sampling of 16Bit/44.1kHz.
You did mentioned that upsampling works best with delta sigma DACs. Sorry for not being digitally technical, but is a delta sigma DAC refer to a type electronic architecture used in PCM DACs like Burr BrownDACs? |
Here's a question.....If one were to make one final version of a master tape and store away that Master for many years. What method would capture everything the tape had to offer so future engineers could use that new source as the master?
1. Digital? 24/96/24/192?
2. Analog tape copy? |
|
@bifwynne
I am surprised that you have no benefit from upsampling. Have you tried inserting an Insulator into your USB connection? Does your DAC have a BNC input for a master clock? Both of these might help in making it more audible. |
@antigrunge2 - thanks. I read most of the link which discusses Delta Sigma versus R2R DACs. Can't say I understand it all, but I think I get the point. That may be why the SQ from good LPs has a certain life and richness that is lacking in digital.
I do not know how Delta Sigma or R2R relates to streaming music. Maybe the music feed is just binary data that the the DAC (be it Delta SIgma or R2R) translates into an analogue signal.
So, ... if one is looking to stream, is it possible to look for a DAC of a particular architecture? |
16/44.1 can sound very good. In my car at least it sounds symphonic with TIDAL, although it helps to have a great system with active crossover speakers etc....But at home it can sound great as well.
A 24/96 DAD can sound incredible. But even with the most trained ears, I've been told it is very hard indeed to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192. So at least for me, 24/96 seems more than adequate.
|
@aberyclark, "If one were to make one final version of a master tape and store away that Master for many years. What method would capture everything the tape had to offer so future engineers could use that new source as the master?" Perhaps you would use metal (or gold plated) LPs like L Ron Hubbard was supposed to have done with his collected works. Apparently he stored them away inside some mountain for some future civilisation to find in case our current one ends up destroying itself. He might have used M Disc had it been available in his lifetime, given that it has a purported lifetime of 1000 years. However it is unlikely to be as easy to play back as metal LP might be. Neither digital or tape would have much chance of surviving a holocaust. Digital on tape is particularly vulnerable. Apparently thousands of digital recordings became useless very quickly after becoming prone to dropouts. ------- Data storage lifespans: How long will media really last? https ://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.storagecraft.com/data-storage-lifespan/amp/ |
Interesting replies. My audio engineering life has been with making amplification as transparent as possible. The more transparent the chain the greater the digital differences that can be heard. So I test out my work with music I have on a few discs that I know very well. Some redbook and some SACD.
For me, percussion and cymbals are the most telling of detail resolution. Shakers, gourds, cymbals have very complex non repetitive overtones that identify them as the instruments they are. Cymbals have sub-tones in the lower midrange that get lost in mixes, intentionally or otherwise. Since I’m also a professional musician (bass) I know their sounds from performing with them.
Orchestral violin blends are also difficult resolution tests. There are harmonics and sub-tones generated in performance that don’t do well in the digital domain at 44/16. But a jump to 24 bits helps and go to 88 or 96Khz and there is great relief from anticipating a colossal fight in the upper 2 octaves in complex passages.
I confess my CD collection was 99% issued before the turn of the millennium. Many are unlistenable on good gear other than for the music content. However some SACDs I have are truly enjoyable. RCA (Sony) reissue of Van Cliburn performances from 1958 and 1960 mastered from original tapes with no processing are a go to for me. First off it’s Van Cliburn. Second, it’s tape direct to disc 3 channel. The inner detail of orchestral passages is always surprising and a great relief to hear. Strings don’t fight with each other. I can hear tape artifacts, while not musical, are less unnatural and on the whole more enjoyable. It’s amazing what was done on an Ampex 3 track in 1958 with Neumann mics.
I also make recordings on a machine that records in 44.1/24 or 16. I hear a difference and 24 is better, no question. Much easier to mix, too. When I had a studio in NYC and recorded a barbershop quartet in 44.1/16 there were some chords that would produce some horrible digital artifacts, so much so that I actually had to mix them in the analogue domain.
Every opinion voiced here is shaped by the equipment the writers use. Some is more transparent than others. Some more forgiving than others. And some ears, better than others.
Which brings me to: EVERYTHING IS A FILTER. Cables, power source, amps, preamps, signal sources, cds, ADCs, DACs, records, streaming, speakers (huge filters), switches, tubes, transistors, op amps, tape machines, mixing boards, virtual mixing boards, rooms, the air in your room, florescent lights, led lighting, ear wax, aging, fatigue . . . Everything affects or alters perception.
Here’s another thing to consider. Upsampling is guesswork. Upsampling generates data that can only be a guess as to what happened between samples. Filters are, too. You pick the nicest sounding guesswork if granted that choice.
For easy math consider this: 44.1khz gives 2 samples of a 22khz event, 4 samples of a 11khz event, 8 samples of a 5.5khz event. There’s a lot of guess work needed to approximate the truth. That said, the brain does its best to fill in the missing pieces. That topic requires a treatise to explore.
My theory of listening and driving fatigue is that the mind is hungry for information. Like driving at night in fog, it's stressful because knowing where the road is is critical to survival. When listening, if you are used to hearing live un-amplified sound or great sound (hi fi) rich with detail and placement cues, the mind notices and strains to hear what is missing in lesser quality recordings or strains to filter out that which shouldn't be there, like harsh sibilants.
So a true 24 bit/ 44.1K recording, not from previously upsampled 16bit, reduces guess work and contains more truth. Double the sample rate and I would concur it becomes harder to discern differences with recordings with sample rates & bit depth above that. Harder but possible.
That said, I can hear file compression artifacts and I don’t use mp-anything for critical listening, AAC is less annoying but noticeable. Youtube is a crapshoot.
So answering the question that this thread is about, I’ll take 96/24 as a minimum for low anxiety critical listening, all remaining things being maximized to get out of the way.
That’s my $.02. Whatever happened to the cent sign that was on my Smith-Corona? |
Here’s another thing to consider. Upsampling is guesswork. Upsampling generates data that can only be a guess as to what happened between samples.
Nope, newly generated data is fully constrained by the input samples. Assuming no violation of Nyquist of course. |
