Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
Julf wrote: > So you would argue that the downsampling (using a high quality > algorithm) is audible? I wrote it isn't always a good idea to down-sample. I was actually assuming high quality down-sampling. My concern is really the quality of up-sampling in older DACs - a concern which is lessened with higher rate input. Newer DACs should have higher quality up-sampling, so down-sampling would be less of an issue with these. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 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?
Yes and no, the inherent alignment on word/cache line boundaries can improve performance regardless of whether the data represents an FP or INT value. Subsequent processing in FP brings its own problems though, I agree. -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=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?
drmatt wrote: > Tbh there are other reasons people want to do this; programming with a > 32 bit word length on all your data is in some ways better and certainly > intrinsically more efficient inside the CPU itself, though of course it > doesn't add anything of any benefit to the content. That definitely applies for 32-bit integers, but with floating point it depends on the FP capabilities of the processor - and going floating point requires care in handling rounding errors. "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?
Julf wrote: > My solution is mp3fs that automatically synchronizes a compressed > version of my uncompressed files. Heh, I just wrote a script. :) I wound up with three copies on disk because I then have another ogg set where I've force normalised the audio data (android doesn't support replaygain). -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=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?
Julf wrote: > Definitely. They are basically an unnecessarily complicated way of > storing 24-bit data in a 32-bit container. Floating point makes sense > for data with a widely varying range, but not for well-constrained audio > data. Tbh there are other reasons people want to do this; programming with a 32 bit word length on all your data is in some ways better and certainly intrinsically more efficient inside the CPU itself, though of course it doesn't add anything of any benefit to the content. We've been running pointlessly 32 bit graphics displays for a decade or two when there's only 24 bits of colour information. -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=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?
M-H wrote: > That is something I will explore too, It might not give me the OGG > format I love, but the few extra bits of MP3 storage do not cost much > anymore , so is not really an argument. Haven't looked at the code closely enough, but it should be pretty easy to make mp3fs to use whatever encoder/codec you want. "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?
Julf wrote: > My solution is mp3fs that automatically synchronises a compressed > version of my uncompressed files. That is something I will explore too, It might not give me the OGG format I love, but the few extra bits of MP3 storage do not cost much anymore , so is not really an argument. Thanks M-H M-H's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66156 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?
ralphpnj wrote: > That may be the correct from technical viewpoint but to me 32 bit files > are just pure marketing BS. Definitely. They are basically an unnecessarily complicated way of storing 24-bit data in a 32-bit container. Floating point makes sense for data with a widely varying range, but not for well-constrained audio data. "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?
Julf wrote: > I assume the 32 bit files are 32 bit floating point - so they are > actually 24 bit files with an unnecessary 8-bit exponent field. That may be the correct from technical viewpoint but to me 32 bit files are just pure marketing BS. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 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?
Julf wrote: > I normally don't worry about storage space (except for the car stereo), > but I am concerned about network bandwidth. Thanks guys, I will try the recommended SW to push the audio back below 1 Mbps in flac. The storage size at home isn't most important factor, but not being able to use the sources on wifi based players around the house and garden is my main reason. With 16/44 flacs files I will have a standard that is convenient in size and quality. Like Julf I do recompress to ogg for usage in on the road. But a future project might be to synchronise data to a car based LMS with HD-storage, and stop bothering to recompres at all. Regards, M-H M-H's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66156 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?
ralphpnj wrote: > Quick question: > > What would you do with 192kHz, 176.4kHz, DSD and 32bit files? > I assume the 32 bit files are 32 bit floating point - so they are actually 24 bit files with an unnecessary 8-bit exponent field. "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?
ralphpnj wrote: > Quick question: > > What would you do with 192kHz, 176.4kHz, DSD and 32bit files? > > My answer: > > I convert/resample 192kHz to 96kHz (flac) > > I convert/resample 176.4kHz to 88.2kHz (flac) > > I convert DSD files to 24bit/88.2kHz flac files > > I convert/resample 32bit to 24bit (flac) I use high bitrate MP3s because I make frequent use of a laundry list of players, and its one of the few formats they all handle. MP3 seems to be more widely compatible than any of the lossless formats including .wav. No playbable music is about the biggest sound quality problem I can think of. ;-) 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
ralphpnj wrote: > Quick question: > > What would you do with 192kHz, 176.4kHz, DSD and 32bit files? > > My answer: > > I convert/resample 192kHz to 96kHz (flac) > > I convert/resample 176.4kHz to 88.2kHz (flac) > > I convert DSD files to 24bit/88.2kHz flac files > > I convert/resample 32bit to 24bit (flac) I actually don't have any of these... :) -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=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?
drmatt wrote: > I wouldn't argue anything like that, personally, but I would argue that > I can't be arsed to resample a bunch of files just to save a few MB. Quick question: What would you do with 192kHz, 176.4kHz, DSD and 32bit files? My answer: I convert/resample 192kHz to 96kHz (flac) I convert/resample 176.4kHz to 88.2kHz (flac) I convert DSD files to 24bit/88.2kHz flac files I convert/resample 32bit to 24bit (flac) Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 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?
It is true that I recompress for portable audio, but that's a move from flac to ogg, not a resample. -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=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?
drmatt wrote: > I wouldn't argue anything like that, personally, but I would argue that > I can't be arsed to resample a bunch of files just to save a few MB. Fair enough - I normally don't worry about storage space (except for the car stereo), but I am concerned about network bandwidth. "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?
I wouldn't argue anything like that, personally, but I would argue that I can't be arsed to resample a bunch of files just to save a few MB. -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=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?
darrenyeats wrote: > Generally, I wouldn't touch a higher rate file - it isn't always a good > idea. Just feed to the DAC as it is. So you would argue that the downsampling (using a high quality algorithm) is audible? "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?
I wouldn't touch a higher rate file - it isn't always a good idea. Just feed to the DAC as it is. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 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?
M-H wrote: > What software and method would you recommend to bring this back to from > 24 bits to 16, and from 96 or 192 KHz to 44 , and maintain the audible > improvements I got over the original ? > I would not need any post recording filtering like RCA compensations , > but do not want to introduce new conversion flaws that could become an > argument that more bits + Khz are better. > Perhaps dividing sample rate in 2 or 4, and maintain a rate my DAC can > handle is the best ? > SoX/Audacity. The default downsampling algorithms are pretty good, and won't degrade the quality. Don't worry about the factor of 2 - it was an issue with ancient algorithms and processors, but doesn't make a difference these days. "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?
pablolie wrote: > Yes 16/44 is plenty, and we deserve more recordings that... uh... > deserve it. > > Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear > beyond 20/44. Again, in some extreme border cases arguably the > quantification error is the issue, and not the sampling frequency > (Nyquist nailed that one). > > But I have not EVER heard of ONE scientifically conducted test that ever > remotely indicates any human on the planet would benefit from anything > beyond 20/44... and most stuff we get in 16/44 doesn't remotely deserve > it, thanks music industry... Gents, Thanks! Based on the info from this discussion I will stop my HD audio experiments, or at least suspend them. ( streaming them through wifi caused more troubles than benefits anyway. ) For one notoriously bad recorded commercial CD ( and worse SACD ) , I had a HD sampled vinyl replacement. This copy really sounds better than the original released digital versions, but probably it has nothing to do with the quadrupled size of the digitised info, but with the CD master production. What software and method would you recommend to bring this back to from 24 bits to 16, and from 96 or 192 KHz to 44 , and maintain the audible improvements I got over the original ? I would not need any post recording filtering like RCA compensations , but do not want to introduce new conversion flaws that could become an argument that more bits + Khz are better. Perhaps dividing sample rate in 2 or 4, and maintain a rate my DAC can handle is the best ? Let me know your advise... Greetz M-H M-H's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66156 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?
ralphpnj wrote: > Smells like MQA and DSD to me. MQA definitely. DSD at least made some technical sense 20 years ago, when digital audio processing and storage was less capable than it is today. "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?
ralphpnj wrote: > Smells like MQA and DSD to me. Correct. 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
arnyk wrote: > ...IOW, people seem to be inventing technically unwarranted recording > formats to sell overpriced DACs. Smells like MQA to me. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 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?
bdarrenyeats wrote: > > > Also there are historical shenanigans with cheap and/or poor ADCs which > have caused measurable issues in a great many recordings. > Attempts to measure this or validate it with DBTs have come up empty. In general, the legacy ADCs were both very good and very expensive. For example, in the early 70s I worked in grad school with a digital interface that was used to connect a EIA 680 hybrid computer with an IBM 1130 digital computer. It was typical of the best precision conversion hardware of the day. At its core it was a 320,000 samples/second 16 bit ADC/DAC pair, with an analog multiplexer that allowed dividing it among up to 8 different concurrent channels. It was based on a resistive ladder, and has +/- 1 LSB precision. It cost a half-million dollars. It was a catalog, off-the-shelf item. If you could proffer the purchase order credibly, in due time they delivered. In about the same time, I was part of this DBT of a piece of digital gear http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm. The critical evaluation by over 20 experienced audiophiles and some of the best recording engineers in the city was that there was no audible difference. My recollection that additional listening tests involving non-musical signals that generally taxed the capabilities of analog tape also passed through it blamelessly. It ran in the low 5-figure range. Back in the early days of digital audio (pre-CD), there were some questionable ADCs, perhaps most commonly accused would be the conversion subsystem of the 3M digital recorder. Read about it here: http://www.mixonline.com/news/news-products/1978-3m-digital-audio-mastering-system/377974 . Note that in the day, with all its faults, it was judged by leading professionals to be superior to 15-30 ips, half track analog recording on the best tape stock, which was the previous high standard for quality work. A recording that was mastered on it, "Bop Until You Drop" by Ry Cooder is often cited as an objectionable recording which analog bigots blame on the 3M mastering. I have an early CD of this song, and it stands head and shoulders above most recordings of the day. Many consider it to be an exemplary work. In the face of a controversy like this, resolving it in favor of analog bigotry seems unwise. > > So I think the argument descends to audibility. Realistically, it can't > be won with digital perfection. > Mentioning digital perfection seems like an excluded middle argument. Perfection is always an impossible goal in the real world, but between the realistic constraints on recording acoustic events and the limitations of the human ear, sonically blameless performance involving digital has been possible for almost half a century, and is currently available for walking around money. For example my M-Audio Microtrack is a stand alone recording system including balanced mic inputs with phantom power. It is now about 8 years old and in its lossless modes, and is sonically blameless. I think its performance can be duplicated today with modern hardware for less than $100. In the day it sold for not much more than twice that. I believe that today sonically transparent DAC chips run about $1, and a USB DAC with sonically blameless performance for line-level outputs can be had for under $10. Many of the esoteric formats that people buy overprice hardware to play either have negligible recorded software to play, or any works that are available using them can be circumvented by simply buying the same work from the same source in a mainstream format. IOW, people seem to be inventing technically unwarranted recording formats to sell overpriced DACs. 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
Numerical calculation errors are easily demonstrated as measurable in the real world e.g. DAC on-board digital filters, SRC software. It's an absolute myth that these calculations are generally perfect in the real world (even though they could be, and in particular cases are perfect). For reference:- (1) Benchmark are one of the "good guys" and yet: https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/40489089-benchmark-dac2-vs-dac1-side-by-side-measurements "A careful examination of the two curves will also show that the DAC1 has slightly more ripple in the frequency response. However this ripple is insignificant from an audibility standpoint and it is hard to see even on this expanded scale. This difference is due to the improved digital filters in the DAC2." Note the DAC2 still exhibits this, albeit less. (2) Comparison of various popular SRC software, some quite poor!: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ Also there are historical shenanigans with cheap and/or poor ADCs which have caused measurable issues in a great many recordings. So I think the argument descends to audibility, it can't realistically be won at the level of digital theoretical perfection. Please understand my point: I've no evidence that the above issues are audible. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 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?
arnyk wrote: > The frequency response you measure is not +/- 0.1 dB. It is +/- zero dB > or as close to that as your numerical calculations allow. > Numerical calculation errors are easily measurable at 24 bits even for the good guys (e.g. tiny Benchmark DAC1/DAC2 frequency ripples which BM themselves acknowledge are artefacts of on-board digital filters, less in the DAC2). In the real world there is better and worse software, and some is relatively quite bad, I've no doubt some errors could be resolvable in 16 bits (120dB with dither). See performance of various SRC software which you can seach online. So I'm afraid many times the discussion does descend to audibility rather than being won at theoretical perfection. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 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 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. > Begs the question raised by the use of more unscientific, placebophile poetic language. What does "Congested" mean? To me "congested" means Intermodulation Distortion which really means nonlinear Distortion. Friendly advice: If you are going to try to school knowledgeable people about audio, first know the appropriate words of art and what they mean. If you want to listen to audible amounts of IM, let me introduce you to two legacy formats, LP and analog tape, that are rife with it. In contrast, properly dithered digital is free of IM or more properly any kind nonlinear distortion. No, not inaudible IM. None at all. Unless you intentionally futz with it, the digital domain is utterly free of any kind of frequency response, phase, amplitude or modulation distortion. Any of that one might find in the digital domain actually comes from the analog domain. For example, if you generate any kind of frequency response, phase response, THD or IM test signal in the digital domain and analyze it there, there are no added artifacts or spurious responses. The frequency response you measure is not +/- 0.1 dB. It is +/- zero dB or as close to that as your numerical calculations allow. > > It is hard to have the instruments maintain their unique place in the > soundstage. > That sounds to me like problems with channel balance or separation. Again, in the digital domain those are perfect. If you find any kind of errors there, they probabaly come from the signals tarry in the analog domain. > > 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. > Wrong. The thing you seem to be alluding to is not slight of hand. It is how proper digital works and has worked since digital audio was developed by Bell Labs starting in the 1930s. You seem to be referring to shat knowledgeable people call "Shaped dither". With perceptually shaped dither, 16 bits can deliver the subjective equivalent of 120 dB dynanmic range which is by the way, equal to SACD. > > And I have heard some very good sounding CDs. But not that many. > If you don't like what you hear on CDs. blame the people who might actually have some responsibility like the artists and production staff. They obviously peed in the soup because CDs are sonically transparent. That means that if you do a fair job of recording them, they are not possible to audibly differentiate from their analog sources. These days everything starts out and finished up analog, right? > > 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. > That is false, and by claiming this we have a tacit admission of (1) No formal education related to digital audio and (2) No practical hands-on experience with digital audio at any reasonable technical level. In fact if you properly (IOW, just follow the cook book and don't pee in the soup) record a pure sine wave with 16 bits, any try to measure its distortion artifacts, it has none. > > I care more about 24 bits than 96 kHz, since I am old and am lucky to > hear above 15 kHz. Yet another audiophile myth. The r eason why cutting off all music above 20 Hz causes no audible effects is due to masking, not due to any inability to hear isolated test tones > 15 KHz. 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] 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] 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
pablolie wrote: > Yes 16/44 is plenty, and we deserve more recordings that... uh... > deserve it. > > Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear > beyond 20/44. Again, in some extreme border cases arguably the > quantification error is the issue, and not the sampling frequency > (Nyquist nailed that one). > > But I have not EVER heard of ONE scientifically conducted test that ever > remotely indicates any human on the planet would benefit from anything > beyond 20/44... and most stuff we get in 16/44 doesn't remotely deserve > it, thanks music industry... Your interpretation of the accepted scientific facts in this area are correct, but you may be asking the wrong question. I claim that the more relevant question is whether we can hear the *removal* of music above a certain frequency, since that is what we are actually doing. We always remove signals above a certain frequency when we make recordings and the like. The relevant question is how low we can set the limit and not hear the difference. This becomes relevant because of masking. At the highest frequencies, lower frequency signals mask higher frequency signals at the same amplitude because the sensitivity of our ears is falling off so rapidly. Furhtermore, musical sound with few exceptions have ampltudes that inherently drop off rapidly above certain frequencies due to the physics of how they work. There is a saying in analytical physics that "Everything is a combination of second order systems." and second order systems naturally fall off at 12 dB per octave above resonance. If you examine the spectral contents of a variety of recordings you will find that just about all of them have peak amplitude at 12 KHz or less, and naturally roll off pretty sharply above that. For example people talk about the high frequencies that are created by cymbals, but they generally peak around 7 KHz and roll off rapidly above that. It turns out that in the most sensitive test cases, a sharp roll off above 16 KHz if well done (and it generally is these days) is not detectable using musical program material, for listeners with really good hearing. For the rest of us, it could be half that or worse. 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
pablolie wrote: > Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear > beyond 20/44. And I would question the 20. Even 16 bits means hearing stuff that is way below the background noise level of your listening room while listening to music at 120 dB... "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?
Yes 16/44 is plenty, and we deserve more recordings that... uh... deserve it. Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear beyond 20/44. Again, in some extreme border cases arguably the quantification error is the issue, and not the sampling frequency (Nyquist nailed that one). But I have not EVER heard of ONE scientifically conducted test that ever remotely indicates any human on the planet would benefit from anything beyond 20/44... and most stuff we get in 16/44 doesn't remotely deserve it, thanks music industry... ...pablo Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 12) running Ubuntu 16.04 + LMS 7.9 System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem Element Fire Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado PS500e/Shure 1540 pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 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?
Wombat wrote: > I was there also :) > But this is how it goes. Higher DR must sound better. Higher bitrate > must sound better. Strangely people that claim to hear all kind of > things trust most in these numbers. > Lately i did read about the 24/44.1 new Metallica is said to sound > better as the cd while the RMS number is exactly -0.9dB more silent as > are the peaks. > Since the 24/44.1 is said to was created for the iTunes version it may > simply be the cd version dropped in volume to comply with the Mastered > for iTunes clipping AAC headroom. > > Edit: and there is also that chance your newly purchased 24/44.1 > download went from 16 to 24 bit from the process of adding a steady > watermark If I think about it, I can't help but smile at the naive thinking that higher DR or higher bitrate *- m u s t -* or any other technical improvement must necessarily sound better. The first and biggest problem is that for something to truely sound better, it has to at least sound different. In the modern audio world, the baseline for technical performance is often so good that we are actually pretty far into diminishing or even vanishing returns. So, sounding different is not always a given, or even possible. The second problem is that there is no uniform, generally agreed up standard for "better sound". All you have to do is look at all of the people who think vinyl or analog tape sound better, look at the actual technical performance these ancient and inherently audibly flawed media can possibly provide and once you stop retching, realize that we have yet another example of a total lack of correlation between improved technical performance and improved sound quality as perceived by some. 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
I was there also :) But this is how it goes. Higher DR must sound better. Higher bitrate must sound better. Strangely people that claim to hear all kind of things trust most in these numbers. Lately i did read about the 24/44.1 new Metallica is said to sound better as the cd while the RMS number is exactly -0.9dB more silent as are the peaks. Since the 24/44.1 is said to was created for the itunes version it may simply be the cd version dropped in volume to comply with the Mastered for itunes clipping AAC headroom. 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=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?
Wombat wrote: > When we are at it. > Remember all the talk about the secret vinyl masters they use but give > us shitty compressed PCM? > Even knowledgeable people argue the DR numbers come only from the vinyl > process and seldom from other masters. > Now that Bob's MQA is around mustn't all these releases have the high DR > numbers of vinyl? Threads over at Hydrogen Audio have revealed that the better DR numbers from vinyl are in fact an artefact of the (necessary) EQ applied when vinyl is cut. (Not talking about RIAA, just the general stuff needed to make vinyl playback work, such as monoing the bass, removal of very low bass, tweaking the treble, etc). If you apply the same EQ to a CD rip, the DR magically goes up. A lot of (most?) modern vinyl is sourced from the same hypercompressed master as the CD. Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 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?
cliveb wrote: > On a good day and with a following wind, maybe :-) > IME typical vinyl is equivalent to more like 10 or 11 bits. > > > Since even the best vinyl struggles to achieve 12 bits of dynamic range, > that's 24dB of potential headroom. Although that does assume a 16 bit > ADC linear down to the LSB, so let's be generous and lop off a couple of > bits. That still leaves us 12dB of headroom when setting recording > levels. If anyone can't operate within those generous limits, perhaps > they should find another hobby. > > One possible argument for doing the initial recording at 24 bit would be > so you can avoid any possible accumulation of quantisation errors during > post-recording DSP (eg. EQ, filtering, etc). To which I would respond > that vinyl has such enormous levels of background noise that you can > probably afford to make several DSP passes without even bothering to > dither and the accumulated rounding errors would still be way below the > level of the (faithfully recorded) vinyl surface noise. > > d6jg: stick with the Behringer (a UCA 202 or 222, I presume?) Yes Clive. I have a Behringer UCA202 and also a Behringer VMS200USB mixer that operates at 16/48. The mixer is great for ripping vinyl as after recording a single swipe R to L switches to playback mode for track splitting purposes. Behringer kit is inexpensive but very well made. *Vortexbox LMS 7.9 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets *Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 -> Sony TA FE 320 -> Sennheiser RS 130 & B P7 *Office* - RPi -> Sony TA FE320 -> Celestion F10s / SB3 -> Onkyo CRN 755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - SB Touch -> Topping TP21 -> AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - Amazon Fire TV (SB Player) -> Topping TP20 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 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?
When we are at it. Remember all the talk about the secret vinyl masters they use but give us shitty compressed PCM? Even knowledgeable people argue the DR numbers come only from the vinyl process and seldom from other masters. Now that Bob's MQA is around mustn't all these releases have the high DR numbers of vinyl? 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=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?
cliveb wrote: > On a good day and with a following wind, maybe :-) > IME typical vinyl is equivalent to more like 10 or 11 bits. I was trying to be charitable :) "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?
arnyk wrote: > Vinyl has dynamic range equivalent to only about 12 bits resolution... On a good day and with a following wind, maybe :-) IME typical vinyl is equivalent to more like 10 or 11 bits. Julf wrote: > Yes and no. You don't need even 16 bits for *storing* the recording of > your vinyl, but 24 bits (well, maybe 20 in reality) gives you some extra > dynamic range in case you get the levels wrong. Since even the best vinyl struggles to achieve 12 bits of dynamic range, that's 24dB of potential headroom. Although that does assume a 16 bit ADC linear down to the LSB, so let's be generous and lop off a couple of bits. That still leaves us 12dB of headroom when setting recording levels. If anyone can't operate within those generous limits, perhaps they should find another hobby. One possible argument for doing the initial recording at 24 bit would be so you can avoid any possible accumulation of quantisation errors during post-recording DSP (eg. EQ, filtering, etc). To which I would respond that vinyl has such enormous levels of background noise that you can probably afford to make several DSP passes without even bothering to dither and the accumulated rounding errors would still be way below the level of the (faithfully recorded) vinyl surface noise. d6jg: stick with the Behringer (a UCA 202 or 222, I presume?) Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 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?
arnyk wrote: > Yes. Vinyl has dynamic range equivalent to only about 12 bits > resolution and frequency response that while extended at low levels > beyond 20 KHz, has so much inherent distortion above 12 KHz that it > actually sounds better with less frequency response than 44 KHz sampling > provides. Julf wrote: > Yes and no. You don't need even 16 bits for *storing* the recording of > your vinyl, but 24 bits (well, maybe 20 in reality) gives you some extra > dynamic range in case you get the levels wrong - once you have the > recording on the computer, you can normalize the gain and it will easily > fit in 16 bits. Thanks both *Vortexbox LMS 7.9 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets *Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 -> Sony TA FE 320 -> Sennheiser RS 130 & B P7 *Office* - RPi -> Sony TA FE320 -> Celestion F10s / SB3 -> Onkyo CRN 755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - SB Touch -> Topping TP21 -> AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - Amazon Fire TV (SB Player) -> Topping TP20 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 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?
d6jg wrote: > This is interesting to me as I have been considering upgrading the ADC > that I use for ripping Vinyl from the current 16/48 Behringer that I use > at the moment to something capable of 24/xx. > There is a massive price jump from 16/48 to anything capable of 24/xx. > Are you all saying that it would (as I suspect) be a complete waste of > money and that 16bit 1s & 0s are going to sound the same as 24bit > versions? Yes and no. You don't need even 16 bits for *storing* the recording of your vinyl, but 24 bits (well, maybe 20 in reality) gives you some extra dynamic range in case you get the levels wrong - once you have the recording on the computer, you can normalize the gain and it will easily fit in 16 bits. "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?
d6jg wrote: > This is interesting to me as I have been considering upgrading the ADC > that I use for ripping Vinyl from the current 16/48 Behringer that I use > at the moment to something capable of 24/xx. > There is a massive price jump from 16/48 to anything capable of 24/xx. > Are you all saying that it would (as I suspect) be a complete waste of > money and that 16bit 1s & 0s are going to sound the same as 24bit > versions? Yes. Vinyl has dynamic range equivalent to only about 12 bits resolution and frequency response that while extended at low levels beyond 20 KHz, has so much inherent distortion above 12 KHz that it actually sounds better with less frequency response than 44 KHz sampling provides. 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] Is 24bit/44.1kHz high resolution or marketing BS?
This is interesting to me as I have been considering upgrading the ADC that I use for ripping Vinyl from the current 16/48 Behringer that I use at the moment to something capable of 24/xx. There is a massive price jump from 16/48 to anything capable of 24/xx. Are you all saying that it would (as I suspect) be a complete waste of money and that 16bit 1s & 0s are going to sound the same as 24bit versions? *Vortexbox LMS 7.9 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets *Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 -> Sony TA FE 320 -> Sennheiser RS 130 & B P7 *Office* - RPi -> Sony TA FE320 -> Celestion F10s / SB3 -> Onkyo CRN 755 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes *Dining Room* -> SB Boom *Kitchen* -> UE Radio (upgraded to SB Radio) *Bedroom (Bedside)* - SB Touch -> Topping TP21 -> AKG Headphones *Bedroom (TV)* - Amazon Fire TV (SB Player) -> Topping TP20 -> Wharfedale Modus Cubes d6jg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=44051 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?
I have a couple of 24/44k files from warp records. I was disappointed they were only 44k as they were advertised only as "24 bit flac". But for these particular recordings they were essentially free with the CD so I figured why not. I've not numerically analysed them to see if there's anything other than noise or zero-padding in the lower order bits (suspect noise, given the file size), and I'm pretty sure I can't tell the difference between them and CD rips. These would all be artificial electronic music sources too, so in principle they could indeed carry real (synthesised) waveforms down into the low order bits. -- 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=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?
ralphpnj wrote: > I suppose that one could just compare the measured dynamic range (via > the foobar plugin or an equivalent) of a 24bit/44.1kHz audio file and > the same audio in a 16bit/44.1kHz file. if the dynamic ranges are the > same (which they absolutely should be) then a 24bit file is just > marketing BS. That is pretty much what I have done. Of course the dynamic ranges aren't always the same - I have come across a few examples where the 24-bit version has *less* dynamic range (clearly a newer "master" - or compressed to make the 24-bit version sound louder and thus "better"). "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?
The Art of (making a lot of money from) Noise LMS 7.7.5 - 5xRadio, 3xBoom, 4xDuet, 1xTouch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1, PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBMC, Foobar2000, XBoxOne, JRiver 21, Chromecast Audio, Chromecast v1, Pi B2, Pi B+, 2xPi A+, Odroid-C1, Cubie2 philippe_44's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17261 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?
jfo wrote: > It seems that the industry still hasn't come with a meaningful standard > definition of Hi Res, so we will continue to see marketing hype for so > called Hi Res material. Dr Mark Waldrep sums up the industry approach > nicely in an excerpt from his post CES blog > > "There seems to be a collective effort to market hi-res music without > any regard to whether it makes any difference. Theyre all chasing the > wrong end of the music fidelity beast. Instead of putting on slick > presentations in expensive booths, or assembling a panel of so-called > industry experts, they should start by creating recordings that actually > possess better fidelity than were currently getting. Theyve defined > all music ever created as hi-res if its delivered to you in a > high-resolution digital container. I was unimpressed." Yup. All of this is pretty well nonsense (as 'discussed recently in a blog post' (http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/01/musings-on-ongoing-push-for-hi-res-and.html)). The industry needs to be seen as doing something different and new to sell yet another "version" of the same thing. Most of these 24/44 releases are totally ridiculous dynamic range compressed http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 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?
It seems that the industry still hasn't come with a meaningful standard definition of Hi Res, so we will continue to see marketing hype for so called Hi Res material. Dr Mark Waldrep sums up the industry approach nicely in an excerpt from his post CES blog "There seems to be a collective effort to market hi-res music without any regard to whether it makes any difference. Theyre all chasing the wrong end of the music fidelity beast. Instead of putting on slick presentations in expensive booths, or assembling a panel of so-called industry experts, they should start by creating recordings that actually possess better fidelity than were currently getting. Theyve defined all music ever created as hi-res if its delivered to you in a high-resolution digital container. I was unimpressed." jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135 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?
This falls in the "heavy sigh" category for me. The vast majority of recordings, even classical, get nowhere near to using the full dynamic range of the 16/44.1 format as it is, which is already a good 30 dB better than what the highly vaunted vinyl LP is capable of. Well recorded CDs are pretty wonderful in my book. The music industry needs to work harder on making more of those rather than spending their time promoting another storage format. Nothing more than my opinion, though. mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 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?
Wombat wrote: > The 24/44.1 recordings i analysed lately with a typical DR8 or lower use > maybe 12-14bit for music the rest is noise. The usable resolution above > the noisefloor does not change even when they sell you 32bit. Julf wrote: > It is indeed high resolution - noise. And no, it doesn't matter - you > won't hear a difference, at least not blind. > > I keep asking for examples of commercial recordings with a dynamic range > exceeding 16 bits, and I still haven't found one. I suppose that one could just compare the measured dynamic range (via the foobar plugin or an equivalent) of a 24bit/44.1kHz audio file and the same audio in a 16bit/44.1kHz file. if the dynamic ranges are the same (which they absolutely should be) then a 24bit file is just marketing BS. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 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?
It is indeed high resolution - noise. And no, it doesn't matter - you won't hear a difference, at least not blind. I keep asking for examples of commercial recordings with a dynamic range exceeding 16 bits, and I still haven't found one. "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?
The 24/44.1 recordings i analysed lately with a typical DR8 or lower use maybe 12-14bit for music the rest is noise. The usable resolution above the noisefloor does not change even when they sell you 32bit. 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=106935 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
