Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
jarome wrote: > 16 bits gets congested. I still haven't come across a commercial recording that uses more than 16 bits of dynamic range. > In principle, by doing some slights of hand (interpolating -randomly- > between bit levels) CDs claim to be able to get 19 bits, which might be > sufficient. Tell us more - how does that work? Sounds like you are talking about dither - that applies to any digital signal, not just CD. The only slights of hand that a CD does is error correction when you get read errors. > Remember that with 16 bits, there are only 65,000 levels (half > negative), so there is a inherent 1/325 % distortion due to imperfect > representation of the sample height. Not distortion, but quantization noise. And the "1/325 %" (0.3) is also misleading, because you also have to look at the frequency distribution of the error. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
jarome wrote: > The Nyquist theorem says that sampling at twice the highest frequency in > the source will reproduce it perfectly. So 44.1 kHz will get to 22 kHz > in principle. But it is critical that there be NO signal above half the > sample rate, or it is aliased below the 22 kHz into the audio band as > bad distortion. > In fact DACs for high fidelity use have been built without anti-aliasing filters. Some of them are sold commercialy and are highly admired by some audiophiles. In general they don't sound all that bad because program material with significant content above 20 KHz is relatively rare. Secondly many modern DACs have what are called Linear Phase filters and they work as advertised. Their phase shift characteristic closely matches that of a regular short delay, so in a certain sense they have no excess delay beyond that which is inherent in playing a recording some time after it was made. > > So, players must have a sharp low-pass filter in the stream. > False for the reasons given. > > The problem with this is that if the amplitude response has a sharp > cutoff, the phase response oscillates wildly. > This is false even when linear phase filters are not used. The phrase "oscillates wildly" while poetic, is not accurate. The oscillation is damped. and therefore brief. Furthermore it can be completely eliminated if the filter has what is known as a minimum phase characteristic which is possible to achieve fairly economically given the continually falling cost of digital logic ceircuitry. The damped rinigning takes place at the Nyquist frequency which in a common CD player is outside the normal audible range. > > The number of bits, to my ear does make a difference, especially on loud > congested music, for example a symphony playing many parts loudly and at > the same time (ives Symphony No. 3). 16 bits gets congested. It is hard > to have the instruments maintain their unique place in the soundstage. > In principle, by doing some slights of hand (interpolating -randomly- > between bit levels) CDs claim to be able to get 19 bits, which might be > sufficient. And I have heard some very good sounding CDs. But not that > many. Remember that with 16 bits, there are only 65,000 levels (half > negative), so there is a inherent 1/325 % distortion due to imperfect > representation of the sample height. > I care more about 24 bits than 96 kHz, since I am old and am lucky to > hear above 15 kHz. The above comments that I am trying to correct here are false for the reasons given. I can debunk the second paragraph as well, but I think the proven falsehoods in the first paragraph that I corrected make my point - which is that these kinds of comments are false and constitute a kind of religious faith that is not uncommon among poorly-informed audiophiles. Knowlegable audiophiles simply know better. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
Wombat wrote: > I picked some info here and there but your summary is the most complete > i did read. Well done! > Funny is how the aliased HF crap from 'unfold' 2 by some is > misinterpreted as original content because of BS using cloudy wordings. And that's an important observation about MQA, Wombat. I think the reason so many reasonable/rational audiophiles have been concerned about MQA is the nebulous way that it's being presented since late 2014. The strange burst of Q articles from Bob Stuart last year, the lack of A/B comparisons from the start. On the one hand, vague hints at "time domain" this and "origami" that. Combined with rather extreme superlatives about just how much better it is compared with everything else down to the micro/pico/nanoseconds... Replete with colorful graphs and impulse responses that on the surface might look enticing but is ultimately all about a sales job. Sure, who doesn't want it to be true? But there ways always that fishy smell and intellectual itch that seems "too good to be true". I don't know how much money Meridian/MQA/TIDAL/record industry want to burn with pushing MQA to keep this going... I won't be surprised if by this time next year, everyone will have moved on (including the aging audiophile mainstream press writers, their shills, and their "alternative facts"). Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
The Nyquist theorem says that sampling at twice the highest frequency in the source will reproduce it perfectly. So 44.1 kHz will get to 22 kHz in principle. But it is critical that there be NO signal above half the sample rate, or it is aliased below the 22 kHz into the audio band as bad distortion. So, players must have a sharp low-pass filter in the stream. The problem with this is that if the amplitude response has a sharp cutoff, the phase response oscillates wildly. The phase is equivalent to delay, and this can affect imaging. So, if the sample rate is, say 96 kHz, you can make a nice smooth (e.g., Gaussian) filter that has a smooth amplitude and frequency response. But it doubles the file size. IMHO, the DVD standard of 48 kHz should be sufficient for flat response to 20 kHz. The number of bits, to my ear does make a difference, especially on loud congested music, for example a symphony playing many parts loudly and at the same time (ives Symphony No. 3). 16 bits gets congested. It is hard to have the instruments maintain their unique place in the soundstage. In principle, by doing some slights of hand (interpolating -randomly- between bit levels) CDs claim to be able to get 19 bits, which might be sufficient. And I have heard some very good sounding CDs. But not that many. Remember that with 16 bits, there are only 65,000 levels (half negative), so there is a inherent 1/325 % distortion due to imperfect representation of the sample height. I care more about 24 bits than 96 kHz, since I am old and am lucky to hear above 15 kHz. jarome's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1223 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
Interesting reading. I can vouch for the Chord DACs sounding quite obviously special but don't have a meridian experience to talk about.. Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk -- Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with Debian+LMS 7.9.0 Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k albums.. drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
Great job - as usual! "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
I picked some info here and there but your summary is the most complete i did read. Well done! Funny is how the aliased HF crap from 'unfold' 2 by some is misinterpreted as original content because of BS using cloudy wordings. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA
Here's a look at the MQA Rendering of the Dragonfly Black: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html I honestly don't see anything "good" here that argues for higher fidelity... Also good for HIRESAUDIO for not selling this kind of questionable "technology"! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107118 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
