96/24 Question

[Stu]

Hello all. I usually play all of my surround and hi-rez material on my
main entertainment component system. Recently I decided to upgrade my
PC to improve the sound and play all of the great hi-rez stuff
available as files. Particularly, the 96/24 FLAC files.I still run XP.
I just bought the USB external sound blaster live soundcard capable of
higher resolutions. I play the files on Winamp which has full FLAC
support. I also just purchased Logitech Z-2300 2.1 speakers. My
question is: I think I have really good ears to discern the nuances of
higher resolutions. I have the device settings on the soundblaster set
to 96/24. The indicators on the Winamp player show the resolution to
be 96/24. I have downloaded several 96/24 FLAC albums including the
Chesky HD sampler.The files sound super clear and clean BUT..Still not
really that different from 44.1/16. In fact I have A/B'd versions of
albums in both formats and have not heard any major difference. Am I
still missing something? Is there a recommended player for these
higher rez files? Do I need ASIO drivers or something or are the
creative drivers sufficient? I have the speakers connected via the
standard 1/8" connection. Thank you to the techies out there for your
knowledge and any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.


Stu

[Lokkerman]

Stu
I use Winamp and an internal Asus Xonar. You most certainly need to use ASIO
and a little plug-in which is not well known but called ASIO4winamp,
(searchable on Winamp)it has to be used in conjunction with the ASIO4ALL
drivers.

Stu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

[Stu]

Hi. Thanks very much for the info. This is actually my second attempt
at the asio4all/asio4winamp combo. I tried for many hours and
configurations but this didn't work at all. Either I got a stuttering
sound or nothing. Horrible. I think Creative may have used it's own
ASIO style drivers for this model and they just don't agree with
asio4all? I don't know. However, the directsound output of winamp sees
the sound card. I am able to play files of any resolution, but they
just don't sound like high rez. I think you are correct; I know what
high resolution should sound like and right now, I don't think it's
there. I'm even open to using something other than winamp but I need
some major geek intervention on my quest for superior sound.

[realafrica]

I suggest you use Foobar2000 as the soft player and Google for the DVD-
A and DTS plugins you'll need for it. It is best to use ASIO if at all
possible.
However I think your major problem in hearing any difference in sound
from 24/96 to 16/44 is because of your speakers and Creative
soundcards are not really audiophile. They are excellent for games not
really good enough for hi res music.

[Stu]

Yes true and thank you for your reply. These are not reference
speakers by any stretch. I did try foobar and it did work perfect with
asio4all. I went back and forth again and again with winamp. My brain
told me foobar was better but it was so minuscule, I wonder if the
difference was in my head. Perhaps I am over analyzing? Wouldn't a USB
device bypass the windows devices in order to work? Especially; to
handle higher resolutions both in and out. It does seem to work great
with it's own drivers on winamp. I can't figure out where if at any
time, the signal would be altered or downsampled. I tweak and listen
so closely yet when I hear what my friends are listening to and using
I have to laugh it's so terrible. lol I will mess with foobar further
and try any other suggestions anyone else may have. Thanks again!

[Lokkerman]

There is a brief explanation of ASIO here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/221237/asio4all-explanation
You definitely need ASIO for USB and there is an expensive driver alluded to
in the article.
I use the Xonar drivers for the DAC but prior to that I've found that in
Winamp it is a requirement to first load the ASIO4 all but I use the ASIO
Winamp dll. I then set the output via direct sound; it appears to load both
drivers and the output DAC can be set to upsample to 2048 (buffer) x192khz,
which is hugely noticeable and removes all the cold greyness of CD.
I know it sounds a long winded process but I have two PC's with ASUS
soundcards and they both work exactly the same.

[yorama]

All these suggestions are to the point, however the best sound is
achieved with the least amount of software between the sound of the
files (the actual bits) and your speakers. For me what works best is
PowerDVD 10 => ATI Radeon 5670 HDMI => Yamaha RX V-465 HDMI Receiver.
Also great results from Xtreamer and Xtreamer Pro for 24/96 (direct
from the RCA outputs) as well as for all surround formats via HDMI.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lokkerman]

So long as you can guarantee that Power DVD doesn't downsample. (there has
been a long running discussion here about P-DVD's use of the K mixer in win
XP) I'm also one of the square worlders that thinks HDMI is not fit for
audio purposes and that the set-up you explain is great for AV (which I
enjoy too but which has a different set of requirements) but not for serious
studio quality audio. I will look up a published diagram on all the software
that you require on your PC and believe me with ASIO as I describe it, it is
the shortest route. You may be surprised what you are doing with the
signals.

[Stu]

Hello again. Ended up really delving into foobar using asio4all and
foobar's asio plug in. This time I followed the directions on
Lokkerman's link closely. I noticed an immediate difference in sound
and clarity. The high's had more "air" and the lows were deeper and
rounder. This is without any eq or plug-ins at all. Gotta thank
Lokkerman and realafrica for the info. Looks like a winner to me right
now. One final question about foobar; In the advanced section, under
"decoding", there is a tone/sweep sample rate set by default to
44100.This number can be changed manually. Does anyone know what this
does? Will putting in a higher number change anything? Thanks again!

> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hide quoted text -

[Mark]

That's interesting Lokks. Do you feel that is that due to the video included in the HDMI
path or something else?

I have been looking into ways to stream multi-channel hi-res audio since my conversion to
surround audio. It came down to two solutions: One with a high quality multi-channel sound
card/DAC with analogue out to amp, or a HDMI solution using a HDMI capable AV receiver (as
a pre/pro). I have gone with the latter option.

So far with my testing, the HDMI option sounds stonkingly good. Should I choose to do a
ABX test I can only compare with a DVD-A player as I have no multi-channel DAC option.

[yorama]

Lokks and All

I compared the HDMI audio to my other analog interfaces and it
always came up on top, specifically in respect to surround channel
separation (M-Audio Fast Track Pro - Stereo ASIO, Creative SB Audigy
II - ASIO, Realtek HD - ASIO4ALL).

PowerDVD 10 will never downsample WAV files including multitrack,
convert all your DVD-A and other necessary content to WAV files and
you are good to go.

PowerDVD 10 will never downsample DTS surround files if they are
contained within Nero Audio-CD .nrg disk images, convert all your DTS
titles to Nero .nrg disk images and you are good to go.

In any case if you have any doubt turn on the "Info" in PowerDVD
and it will show you if downsampling is being performed or not.
Following the above recommendations you also need to set the audio
playback to "PCM Decoded by PowerDVD".

It sounds like a lot to go through for just listening to music,
but this is not just listening and it's not just any music.

> > studio quality audio.- Hide quoted text -

[Lokkerman]

This is a debate that can go on for ever but from my point of view it is not
a debate and my reasons are. - Somewhere along the line you have to enter
the analogue domain. The analogue domain is something well understood with
years of many folks spending a life time on their pieces of kit.

HDMI is a common video/audio/digital interface; by the laws of physics there
will be cross channel interference and cross-talk between the signal lines.

In contrast RCA type phonos and balanced interconnect are known and proven
to be better; I myself use pure silver (not plated) interconnects for my
reference system; because they sound better. They are low on noise and
cross-talk.

I also play my DVD-As without video, and that is why Denon give you the
option to switch it off, because it sounds better. That is why I missed off
the video on WYWH and recommended DVD+R's to record on because to me they
sound better.
It is also the reason I discarded my audigy 2 and purchased a Xonar because
to me the Xonar knocks the spots of the Creative, and looking at the
chipsets used I can see why.

My point about this - is that - if you truly want to compare you need to
compare apples with apples. I have three stereo power amps one which I
designed myself and I have three stereo pre-amps - the decode done within
in my dedicated music server with the Xonar or my Denon 2930. As a source
comparison I use a Ferrograph Logic 7, renowned as one of the best sounding
reel machines ever made.

I use HDMI and have a Sony receiver in the living room, which is only a
couple of years old, great AV, but guess what - the receiver does not
support multichannel SACD. To me HDMI is great for the plug n'play brigade
but not for achieving studio quality, video or audio.

I cannot comment on P-DVD10 as I don't use it as I found it offensive that
my earlier version, that I had to pay for the DTS and audio pack told me
that it was giving me 96/24 when in fact it wasn't:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/10/08/powerdvd_ultra_audio_downsa
mpling_explained/1
P-DVD10 in contrast does support more parameters but I do not wish to
improve upon these parameters as I am more interested in a good sound not
vision (Note* PowerDVD 10 supports HD audio output on computers equipped
with hardware that conforms to Blu-ray content protection rules. If your
sound card or chipset is not on the list of supported hardware, PowerDVD 10
will down-sample your audio output to 48kHz/16bit in compliance with the
protection rules. See the Hardware Support page for more information {taken
from the cyberlink web site}. )

I also do not agree with the constraints of this obsessive industry that
appears to try and remove any hint of high performance in the digital
domain, under the guise that is because of copy protection, when BlueRay was
cracked years ago.

Finally, I try not to use DTS in whatever form (apart from the lossless MA)
as I find the sound is awful, to me it is surround sound MP3 (great for cars
though) and full of phase anomalies, crushed percussion, smearing, poor
transients, false bass etc etc. There is I think an exception to this and it
is commercial hardware encoded DTS, which appears to be superior and I don't
know why.

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of yorama
Sent: 18 August 2010 08:37
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

Lokks and All

--

[Richard]

Hope you don't mind me adding my tuppence worth here:

 

I have to agree about HDMI. Just think of it as a modern day SCART. A dreadful way of transmitting audio and video. You can see why it was only taken up in Europe, and in no way would you be able to expect high quality from using it. Designed for (as Lokks says) plug and play for the masses, over quality.

 

I don't think there has been enough development in DTS and MLP software decoders. I feel they lag behind their hardware cousins by quite a degree, which I why I've stayed 100% hardware based.

 

OD

 

HDMI is a common video/audio/digital interface; by the laws of physics there
will be cross channel interference and cross-talk between the signal lines.

To me HDMI is great for the plug n'play brigade
but not for achieving studio quality, video or audio.

[Joe A]

Lokks already talked about it, but I wanted to add some detail to jogg
people's memories about PowerDVD.

Way back when they the first that "supported" DVD-Audio. * = always
downsampled to 48-16.

In the early days of PAP (protected audio path) for Blu-Ray and HD-
DVD, they supported 24-bit audio on the Realtek HD audio chipsets
which are very common. It even worked for a very short window. Then
they broke it and never fixed it, and don't respond to any inquiries
about it on their horrible tech support forum, despite still claiming
to support it on their website to this day. I have a HTPC with one of
those chipsets and It downsamples BD-audio to 16-bit. With an HDMI
card it claims to do decoding to 32-bit PCM but I don't trust it. It
will bitstream. But all those analog chipsets it claims to support
with PAP are a lie.

As for the "least amount of software" as Lokks said, there are many
paths internal to Windows as far as sound processing, behind the
curtains, and what may superficially appear to be a direct route is in
fact far from it inside the operating system. That's what people are
on about with things like ASIO.

[jolson]

HDMI is evil. RCA phono plugs aren't that nice either. XLR is quite
decent.

The "Good Guys" are especially Meridian MHR, but also DenonLink and
Pioneer iLink.

But Meridian are passé when it comes to HQ audio, they have stopped
supporting "their own baby" DVD-Audio.

[Stu]

So what ever happened to the HDMI 2.0 protocall. Didn't it offer to
handle more data? And how about the much ballyhooed DTS master audio,
which is supposed to offer bit for bit identical sound to master
tapes? I still feel most people don't know or care about sound.
However, since HD has become the new hip thing and is a term used for
everything now, perhaps some audio will finally follow.

[Lokkerman]

Can't answer the point about HDMI 2.0 but DTS mA is out there, but I think
you are quite right - most folks look at the A/V aspects and not the sound
and the marketeers of the A/V products fashion it that way. Audio Surround
and Hi-Res is becoming esoteric but I guess that's why we are here. As for
audio HD; the market size for high quality audio has been reduced, perhaps
deliberately so, as to make the output barely a trickle - HD I think will
not change that apart from with a visual component.

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Stu
Sent: 19 August 2010 01:45
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

--

[mircea raibulet]

4 Lokk,

True,seems that hdmi sollution works kinda' 'AIO' for those of us who don't wanna use too many cables[in my case it's a jungle back there   :)].

So...try to use hdmi out 4 hi res video only and mutich.  analog audio out 4 all kind of audio formats.

P.S.Some receivers do allocate different video inputs to different audio inputs[ex.hdmi video input+multich. analog audio input when watching br.....].

Mircea

[Lokkerman]

Mircea

Exactly and I couldn't agree more; back in the UK we have an expression - "Horses for Courses" - meaning the right thing for the right moment. Both of a part to play but don't confuse the two.

Lokks

---

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mircea raibulet
Sent: 19 August 2010 22:19
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

[Lokkerman]

Very interesting article I got sent to me from a fellow SSGG member. HDMI is now dead!!

BTW what a great site and will sort out links to it soon. (that's if VF didn't do it already lol)

http://www.audaud.com/article?ArticleID=7597

Lokks

---

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mircea raibulet
Sent: 19 August 2010 22:19
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

[Mark]

yay!

1. My house is already hard wired for this.
2. The price of high end HDMI receivers will go down. maybe.

Boo!

1. yet another 'standard'. Crikey. let the fun begin: HDCP over ethernet <evil grin>
2. I've just bought a new HDMI receiver. Curse!

HDMI is definitely not dead yet. It may die a slow painful death over the next few years -
but it's around right now and will be for a while.

Audiofools will now be buying 'Audiophile Quality' cat5 audio cables for $500. Current
cat5 price: less than $1 per metre. Caveat Emptor.

On 20/08/2010 9:08 AM, Lokkerman wrote:
> Very interesting article I got sent to me from a fellow SSGG member.
> HDMI is now dead!!
> BTW what a great site and will sort out links to it soon. (that's if VF
> didn't do it already lol)
> http://www.audaud.com/article?ArticleID=7597
> Lokks
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* surrou...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *mircea raibulet
> *Sent:* 19 August 2010 22:19
> *To:* surrou...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

> <http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/10/08/powerdvd_ultra_audio_downsampling_explained/1>

> <mailto:Surrou...@googlegroups.com> To

> unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com>

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:Surrou...@googlegroups.com>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com>

[Stephen Disney]

In fact, you can already get hdmi to cat5 adapters.
S

[RW]

>> HDMI is now dead!! <<

Well, folks, I wouldn't bet the ranch on that just yet. You must
remember, it is not always the better format that wins the battle - if
it were so, BetaMax would have defeated VHS, SACD and DVD-Audio would
not be niche products. Many other factors are in play besides just
technical superiority. And market "penetration" is one of them. HDMI
has a very high market penetrtation; EVERY A/V device (and PCs) being
produced today has HDMI capability. And consumers love HDMI, it does
make for a very neat and simple hook-up, you must admit. And,
frankly, it sounds damn good to my aging ears - I do not hear (or see)
any adavantage of Component connections over HDMI. And the Component
connections require 6 cables to HDMI's 1, that is a huge benefit for
HDMI.

I see myself still using HDMI connections 20 years from now, I can see
no good reason for me to want to change. In fact, I placed an order
from MonoPrice 2 days ago for some very nice 22 awg HDMI cables, I
should have them in my system by the end of the weekend.

-RW-

On Aug 19, 7:08 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very interesting article I got sent to me from a fellow SSGG member. HDMI is
> now dead!!
> BTW what a great site and will sort out links to it soon. (that's if VF
> didn't do it already lol)http://www.audaud.com/article?ArticleID=7597
> Lokks
>
>   _____  
>

> From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of mircea raibulet
> Sent: 19 August 2010 22:19
> To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question
>
> 4 Lokk,
> True,seems that hdmi sollution works kinda' 'AIO' for those of us who don't
> wanna use too many cables[in my case it's a jungle back there   :)].
> So...try to use hdmi out 4 hi res video only and mutich.  analog audio out 4
> all kind of audio formats.
> P.S.Some receivers do allocate different video inputs to different audio
> inputs[ex.hdmi video input+multich. analog audio input when watching
> br.....].
> Mircea
>

> that it was giving me 96/24 when in fact it wasn't:http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/10/08/powerdvd_ultra_audio...
> <http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2007/10/08/powerdvd_ultra_audio...
> ampling_explained/1>

> mpling_explained/1
> P-DVD10 in contrast does support more parameters but I do not wish to
> improve upon these parameters as I am more interested in a good sound not
> vision (Note* PowerDVD 10 supports HD audio output on computers equipped
> with hardware that conforms to Blu-ray content protection rules. If your
> sound card or chipset is not on the list of supported hardware, PowerDVD 10
> will down-sample your audio output to 48kHz/16bit in compliance with the
> protection rules. See the Hardware Support page for more information {taken
> from the cyberlink web site}. )
>
> I also do not agree with the constraints of this obsessive industry that
> appears to try and remove any hint of high performance in the digital
> domain, under the guise that is because of copy protection, when BlueRay was
> cracked years ago.
>
> Finally, I try not to use DTS in whatever form (apart from the lossless MA)
> as I find the sound is awful, to me it is surround sound MP3 (great for cars
> though) and full of phase anomalies, crushed percussion, smearing, poor
> transients, false bass etc etc. There is I think an exception to this and it
> is commercial hardware encoded DTS, which appears to be superior and I don't

> know why.-----Original Message-----

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

[Lokkerman]

But look at the success of MP3. Get my point....

[Joe A]

Very good point RW.

Not only that, we seem to be in a period of seemingly unnecessary
format change as far as interconnects as HDMI. There have been
endless revisions to HDMI culminating in the current 1.4 spec with 3D
support and arguably this all goes back to DVI and HDCP. Then there's
the spectre of Display Port and all its offshoots gunning to eliminate
HDMI. HDBaseT has benefits of using existing cat5 infrastructure and
cheap thin cabling, but is it enough?

I think (and somewhat hope) that HDMI has hit the high-water mark of
being "good enough", and being ubiquitous on AV gear for the past 5
years or so (TV/disc/AV receivers) that its established itself and
efforts to usurp it will be wasted.

If there are cheap adapters that don't do any processing (I've seen
cheap DP->HDMI cables and someone already posted about HDMI->HDBaseT
adapters) then what's the point?

I think HDMI has established a beach head that will not be easy to
dislodge.

[Lokkerman]

Which then goes full circle to my point - the audio has been neglected with this plug and play interconnect and after all I thought that this was what we are all about. (The sound that is).

[RW]

Well, I know that some folks claim to hear deficiencies in the audio
portrayal of HDMI, but I simply cannot hear it. It sounds damn good
to me, and well so it should with the bandwidth it is capable of. Of
course, you must remember that I was born in the 50s and spent my
youth listening to cheap AM clock radios, then portable transistor
radios, on to 8-track tapes, vinyl albums, then cassettes, and finally
CDs and DVDs. And I can tell you, for certain, that the newest codecs
are killer. How anyone can find fault with a DTS-MA or Dolby True-HD
rendition is beyond me. I think they sound fabulous. And I also like
DTS very much when properly done - see Junior Wells' "Come On In This
House" to hear what I am speaking of. Frankly, I do not see the new
HDBase T making a serious run at HDMI, too many folks have already
bought into HDMI and would be loathe to change...

-RW-

[yorama]

In my book LPCM streaming is just that, digital audio that needs to
get from one point to another intact. When surround is concerned then
the multiple audio tracks also need to be tightly in sync. I believe
that HDMI can accomplish this task well and by using certified
components in the chain like PowerDVD, choice ATI cards and the latest
HDMI receivers, one can achieve very high playback quality. A pure
HDMI system streaming 24/96 audio should be transparent and the rest
is up to the quality of the receiver, speakers and room acoustics.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Paul Garfunkel]

I will chime in here. Digital is still a weak second to analog. The
warmth and tone of vinyl still kills digital every day!

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

[Joe A]

Lokks:

I was scratching my head a bit when you first made that statement but
I thought I'd leave it for another day.

As near as I can tell, HDMI is completely digital and there are no
analog paths involved. Therefore, regardless of fear of crosstalk and
bleed-over, it's essentially a digital data stream sent over the cable
much like SPDIF except there is two-way communication. Do you have
evidence that there is a significant error rate (or for that matter,
anything worth discussing at all) when dealing with two HDMI
transceiving devices? If there were transmission errors, I'm sure the
stream is checksummed or has some other method of detecting errors,
and it would be retransmitted or at worst case error correction would
be applied (and this would be bad, but I'm skeptical as to whether it
would happen at all).

Further one would think that keeping sound in the digital domain for
as long as possible is beneficial -- at least with digital data we can
keep an eye on integrity from component to component. In the analog
domain, transmission noise, cross-talk, magnetic and RF interference,
et al, can leak into the signal and there's not too much we can do
about it without signal processing which is undesirable.

And while I agree that up until now audio has been neglected -- there
was no widespread successor to SPDIF until now -- DVI had no audio
support, firewire was proposed but never implemented, etc -- I find it
hard to argue it has been neglected in HDMI. 7.1 192-24 PCM or
bitstream audio (DTS HD-MA, Dolby True HD, even heard DSD). What more
do you want? Where is HDMI deficient in this area?

Finally, when one puts a little thought into the problem, as you said
the signal has to become analog somewhere. Is is smarter for every
consumer device to have its own DACs of varying quality, and introduce
noise in the analog domain in transmission from the device to the
receiver, or is it smarter to stay in the digital realm as long as
possible, eliminate transmission noise, and save the good Burr-Brown
DACs for the receiver's consistent DA conversion. As long as the
receiver has a good DAC all should be good, shouldn't it?

Any differences I can think of should be down to:
- quality of the DACs in the component versus quality of DACs in the
receiver
- if PCM is the output then quality of the decoder in the component
versus the decoder in the receiver
- error correction in the digital signal, if any exists (and I have no
idea if it does or not)

In the context of home theater, audio seems to have been addressed.
As an audiophile, you just have to buy into it.

What am I missing? I want to hear your thoughts.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe A]

I love vinyl, but have you listened to the same master on vinyl and
DVD-A/SACD/Blu-Ray? 96-24 digital and vinyl, to me at least, are neck
and neck and with the digital you don't have to deal with the noise
inherent in vinyl.

For example I have Rush-Snakes and Arrows on vinyl and 96/24 PCM from
DVD. Noise on the vinyl aside, I can't complain about either's sonic
quality.

No question vinyl beats CD -- but hi-res digital I'm not convinced.

On Aug 22, 6:27 am, Paul Garfunkel <paulgarfun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will chime in here. Digital is still a weak second to analog. The
> warmth and tone of vinyl still kills digital every day!
>

[Paul Garfunkel]

Ok pick a non digital recording for your basis of comparison. Think of
it this wav. True analog wav forms are as natural as your voice and
ear. Digital no matter how good still is a graphic representation of
an analog wave form and cannot carry low end anywhere near analog.

[Lokkerman]

Jo
I understand the scratching of head.
My problem lies in the fact that I have failed to update myself on the
latest versions of this interface and I can understand why. I was I
thought, familiar with the pre 2003 {pre 1.0 spec} (first implementation of
HDMI, which I believed carried the analogue carrier as well as the digital
component.) This is made worse by two of my own HDMI devices appearing to
act in this way, probably down to the fact that their implementation of this
interface does not match whichever iteration each device is working to.
I will make more comprehensive comments very shortly.
Lokks

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Joe A
Sent: 22 August 2010 14:13
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

Lokks:

[yorama]

Taking a side in favor of HDMI does not necessarily mean not
understanding and appreciating the benefits of high quality analog.
Analog rulez, infinite Vinyl resolution always rulez for sound, as it
does with pictures on film. Wish I had a seat next to Axman or Doc
when they do their Rips, the sound must be fabulous, but we all need
to settle for the second best. What-to-do, all the various 24/96 files
that we want to play, they are all in digital form and not analog. The
best we can do is to deliver them gracefully to a decent DAC, amp,
speakers........... and sit back, enjoy.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Mark]

That's exactly it. Well said.

[dave]

" If there were transmission errors, I'm sure the
stream is checksummed or has some other method of detecting errors,
and it would be retransmitted or at worst case error correction would
be applied (and this would be bad, but I'm skeptical as to whether it
would happen at all). "

Ahhh... This is the myth of "digital is perfect".

The HDMI spec has no ability for "retransmission".

Error checking can be done on the receiving end... and if the device
detects an error, it can decide what to do.... but it doesn't have the
option to ask for the data again.


It is also a myth to say that keeping a signal in the digital domain
is better .... the errors in the digital domain (jitter/timing) are
less pleasant audibly (generally) than errors in the analog domain,
and jitter errors are much, much easier to encounter... especially
when dealing with such a high clock rate interface such as HDMI.


This is not to say that HDMI is necessarily worse than analog... there
are obviously great HDMI machines out there.... to conclude that is
a "superior format" becuase of reasons revolving around the
"superiority of digial transmission" are based on a lack of
understanding of digital sampling theory.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[dave]

"Further one would think that keeping sound in the digital domain for
as long as possible is beneficial -- at least with digital data we
can
keep an eye on integrity from component to component."

... sure, but when an error is detected (which HDMI can do) ... what
to do about it. HDMI can't send the info again, so the receiving
devices can basically choose to use the errored info.... drop the
errored info.... or do some type of fancy interpolation processing to
"invent" the errored data.

> > speakers........... and sit back, enjoy.- Hide quoted text -

[Joe A]

Well agreed about the quality of a good Vinyl rip, and I'd love to
have a truly good turntable setup that costs more than a used car, but
I don't.

As far as analog's inherent superiority, now we're getting into an
artistic or personal preference for imperfection.

This is analogous to audiences having become used to film grain in
theaters. Even on Blu-Ray people have complained about the lack of
film grain so good masters preserve the grain. Films are more
commonly shot on digital and things end up looking "too pristine" so
often the video is intentionally blemished to mimick film grain. Now
we're starting to see cameras that are capable of exceeding the
effective resolution of film -- what to do?

Vinyl may have infinite resolution but it carries with it the
drawbacks of analog playback -- noise, hissing, and popping; along
with the drawbacks of a needle rubbing against plastic to generate
sound, and degrading the quality of the media each time it's played.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe A]

The myth of "digital is perfect"?

Versus the myth that digital is crippled by errors?

In the case of over-the-air or satellite transmission, yes, there's a
conversation to be had.

But we're discussing a closed system, between two HDMI devices. Is
there any error at all, let alone anything significant. Short of
defective hardware or a defective cable, I find it close to
impossible.

And if either device in the chain is defective, the chances are still
high that any DA-AD conversion is going to be wrong too.

Further, the assumption here is that the source is digital in the
first place. I'll go back and reread the thread, but I haven't seen
many HDMI turntables.

> ...
>
> read more »

[yorama]

The HDMI spec provides no ability for retransmitting however it does
make extensive use of error correcting codes by way of parity. In a
nutshell it is same as if you download a bunch of RAR files and a few
are corrupt, you can then repair the corrupt ones by using information
that is stored in the other files.

Jitter shouldn't really be a problem for HDMI audio streaming and
there are plenty of ways to overcome or improve at the destination.
Even if some latency is introduced in the process it shouldn't effect
the audio listener, if the playback will start even a second later
then it's no big deal.

HDMI 1.3 also defines two categories of cables, 1 and 2. If you are
really paranoid about interference then you can use the latter for
streaming up to 340MHz of high def video and audio (10.2 Gbps), only a
small portion of that will be used for streaming a full uncompressed
surround stream with 8 X 24/192 LPCM.

As previously stated it is important to use the latest HDMI gear in
the chain in order to reap all the benefits and achieve high quality
playback.

> ...
>
> read more »

[dave]

"> The HDMI spec provides no ability for retransmitting however it
does
> make extensive use of error correcting codes by way of parity. In a
> nutshell it is same as if you download a bunch of RAR files and a few
> are corrupt, you can then repair the corrupt ones by using information
> that is stored in the other files."

No. HDMI does not work like that. There is enough "parity data" to
reliably detect corrupted data... but not enough to reconstruct
corrupted data.

Digital errors in HDMI transmission are errors forever.... and there
are a lot more transmission errors in HDMI (than say SPDIF) due to
it's higher clock rate // jitter susceptibility..... HDMI cables are
more often than not, utter rubbish in construction, further
compounding the problem.


Digital system CAN be made 100% perfect.... however, digital to analog
conversion is NEVER perfect. Anybody who has heard a lot of
different DACs can attest to this. Analog (audio) output stages in
DACs also play a big part in the sound, they can be difficult to
design right (perhaps economically is a better word).


All that being said... generalising a transport like HDMI as "bad" is
a little rough. It's all in the implementation, and no doubt HDMI
audio can be very, very good.... and obviously is the only consumer-
grade choice we have for digital transmission of lossless surround.

> ...
>
> read more »

[dave]

"> Versus the myth that digital is crippled by errors?
>
> In the case of over-the-air or satellite transmission, yes, there's a
> conversation to be had.
>
> But we're discussing a closed system, between two HDMI devices.  Is
> there any error at all, let alone anything significant.  Short of
> defective hardware or a defective cable, I find it close to
> impossible."

Digital sampling theory says that because HDMI has such a high
transmission rate that things like jitter become super-critical making
error free transmission almost impossible.i

I'm not suggesting HDMI is "crippled" by errors.... although they can
definitely have a large effect. However it IS a poorly conceived and
implemented standard... especially for transmitting HQ audio.


This may enlighten those interested:
http://bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi.htm

> ...
>
> read more »

[dave]

"> Jitter shouldn't really be a problem for HDMI audio streaming and
> there are plenty of ways to overcome or improve at the destination.
> Even if some latency is introduced in the process it shouldn't effect
> the audio listener, if the playback will start even a second later
> then it's no big deal."

Sorry buddy, but it seems with this statement that you don't
understand what jitter means in a digital system. It's probably best
not to "school" others if you're not sure.

It's most certainly not about a delay thats perceivable to the
listener. It's about the timing of the digital data and the clock
signal at the pico-second level.


Sorry, guys. I'm getting off my "soapbox" now.

On Aug 23, 10:25 pm, yorama <webmas...@liatart.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Rajeev Sharan]

Stu,

One of the first issues I see with your setup is a proper amp capable of truly handling the 24/96 that you want to pass. I'm talking from experience here :-) - several years ago after thoroughly studying the specs of various receivers, I bought a Sony 7.1 receiver. I was very happy with the upgrade (from an old Technics) until one of my friends suggested Harman Kardon. Thankfully I happened to come across and HK AVR-525 in the local Circuit City (alas!) and thinking that if nothing I can always return it, I brought it home. I ran the same channel from the CD player (just a normal CD player sending analog audio signal) to the 2 receivers, Sony and HK and even my wife could tell the difference.

Second, the speakers - as many here have said, is one of the most critical but often overlooked pieces.

 

Bottom line - while many would be satisfied with proper sound from a $100 setup, if you're really interested in hearing the difference between CD version and DVD/SACD version, you really have to upgrade your setup with 24/96 capable gears!

 

Good Luck!