Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

199 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

pj-mckay

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 6:05:16 PM1/13/12
to SurroundSound
All I would say is that the old adage of 'rubbish in = rubbish out'
still needs to be taken into account. For the record, I'm 50 but glad
to see the back of LPs,
and having to flip it over almost before I've sat down. For me...
Network acces is paramount. 100% lives on the NAS, BUT I have found a
few 'flacs' of LPs I couldn't justify buying on CD and ripping.
However the snap crackle and pop makes some of them absolute rubbish
in my oppinion. So... a decent import, and a decent flac YES... but
a rubbish import will be just as bad in hi-res flac as a low-res mp3
would be. Some folk do provide quality... others are shockingly bad.

My point: There's no point in worrying about bitrate if the source
isn't up to it !



On Jan 13, 2:42 am, Tab Cursor <tabcur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking for some definitions... Anyone have more to add? I found
> this one on the first two.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tab
>
> ========================================================
>
> "Bit Rate Resolution and Sampling Rate for Dummies
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'm posting a quick explanation for the digital jargon that one
> constantly hears: Bit Rate Resolution & Sample Rates. This post is
> intended for all who want a better understanding of what these terms
> actually mean. I recently read up on these definitions to be more
> informed in the misleading marketing world and to better understand
> the more esoteric posts on this site. All audiophiles and techies,
> please tweak this post or add some more insight.
>
> Digital Audio is measured in two ways: Bit Rate Resolution and Sample
> Rate.
>
> Sample Rate is the number of samples per second taken of the audio.
> 1Hz = 1 sample per second. RedBook CD (RBCD) is 44.1kHz = 44,100
> samples per second.
>
> Bit Rate Resolution is the digital word length of each sample. This
> determines how precise each sample is. Think of it this way. You can
> explain last night's concert more precise using 100 words rather than
> using 20 words. RBCD bit rate resolution is 16bit which gives a 65,535
> word length. If a certain sample takes more than 65,535 words to
> describe than the sample will lose some information which results in
> distortion. The precision difference with bit rate is noticeable when
> you realize that most internet audio streams are at 8bit and digital
> telephones are at 4bit. Background noise is associated with lower bit
> rates.
>
> So......If one second of audio is analogous to the view of your
> backyard, the RBCD digital representation of your backyard would be
> akin to looking at it through a screen door with 44,100 holes in the
> screen and 65,535 words or colors within each screen hole.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> GH
>
> gypsyhick is on a distinguished road "
>
> --http://forums.audioreview.com/how-articles/bit-rate-resolution-
> sampling-rate-dummies-4214.html

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 11:03:40 PM1/12/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
There is sample rate, there is bit depth (aka word length, bits per
sample), and there is bit rate (data per unit of time, can be a constant
or variable rate). This article appears to confuse the last two. There is
no such thing as 'bit rate resolution' and this is the only article I've
seen that uses the term.

> --
> 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
>


August Bleed

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 8:01:56 PM1/13/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Then you get into whether or not those bits are even significant!  HAHAHA!  Many CDs have an actual resolution of around 12-14 bits.  24 bit recordings usually top out at about 20 actual bits.  It's a 'bit' confusing.
--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 8:23:52 PM1/13/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

Britre

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 10:14:30 PM1/13/12
to SurroundSound
My 2 cents (and it really is only worth that!)

I have recorded 48/96 32 bit, 48khz 16 bit and 44.1 khz 16 and 32 bit
using various available softwares and various sound card
configurations. I personally stick with 44.1 16 bit as it is easy to
work with, allows easy conversion to any useable format, and works the
processor very little leaving lots of room to prevent errors.

In a sound test using HQ viny sources my ears could not tell one iota
of difference in detail, transparancy or frequency response between
all recorded methods. Another reason to stick with the 44.1 16 bit
rate for digital archiving. It all starts with the best source and
follows from there.

What does tend to make Compact Disc and poorly made DVD-A/SACD sound
bad is compression, poor dithering (as mentioned in the article) peak
overloading to make things sound loud on cheap small equipment, and
poor low quality mastering done these days either because it was
mastered "in the box" and no one ever bothered to listen to it in a
quality analog environment before it went to market, and/or poor
production by lazy money people not music people.

For years the standard minimal audiophile freq response was 15hz-30Khz
60db S/N with the only need for 50Khz being Quadraphonic reproduction.
Believe me on a good system you can hear the screech of that carrier
signal. Not pleasant. A properly mastered compact disc can do quality
sound within this proper range.

I think specs are a way to sell things not a way to judge things. A 4
cylinder engine tuned properly may outperform the best V8 regardless
of power specs and power range. I rest my case.
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 10:34:53 PM1/13/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
The site actually has quite a few articles, one in which he argues the case for more channels having a much larger impact on sound than bit depth and sample rate.  That said I can't help but notice (and most of the high res stuff I listen to is MC...) that the bass is always better hands down.  Things seem not as squished together when there are 48 tracks competing for my sonic attention.  That said the difference is not night and day unless you add the extra channels for me.  I think that many people in the field are correct when they assert that 20 or 21 bit/70 is closer to what is actually needed without creating undue overhead.  The best CDs I've heard like Gillian Welch aren't busy enough to demand more bandwidth while Sufjam Stevens (sorry if I butchered his name!) would probably benefit from it.  Since you have more experience in this realm than I do I certainly respect and believe you when you say 16/44 is perfectly fine.  My experience is only as a consumer and what I've heard from what is available.  Sometimes it seems a waste of space, sometimes it really deepens the experience and I get that "Whoa" feeling I had when I first heard certain recordings.  I can't say all that material has done that for me.  We can probably all agree on the best 20 or so high res surround recordings in the rock world with little or no problems and probably not many variations of the list.

Britre

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 12:53:53 PM1/14/12
to SurroundSound
Actually it is not to say 44.1/16 is perfectly fine it is to say it
starts with source then whatever sampling format you use should be
sufficient. The problem comes in QC of the product, dithering as said
in the article, remastering by eliminating tape noise if oresent and
artifacts from analog tape all cause a loss of fidelity and
transparency.

For a comparison take the 2000 WYWH Floyd reissue, the DVD-A at 640K
stereo, the vinyl and the Blue Ray disc. The Blu Ray wins hands down
with the vinyl as a second because it is the best reproducer of the
original source. But ask yourself is the original source good? Would
it have sounded better had it been properly mastered for the forum it
was on? Why does the Quad on the same disc DVD-V and same 640k give
you chills and the Guthrie mix is sterile and digital sounding? It is
all in the source. Why is the tape hiss missing fron the Wilson mix of
Aqualung if indeed it is from the original master tape which for 40
years had tape hiss? What else is missing along with that tape hiss?
Then you can see why it may sound bad to experienced ears and why a
experienced person might have the opinion that professionals like
Steve Wilson, Steve Hoffmann and James Guthrie ruin music rather than
improve it.

Be of the mindset however that one of Guthries bigger firsts was Judas
Priest Hell Bent For Leather (he was assistant on Alvin Stardust
recordings and those also had that air about them) and it had the
same air about it his recent mixes do. So this is the Guthrie style.
And just as xtra how does a guy go from doing the Bay City Rollers to
being the expert on re-mixing Brian Humphries WYWH mix?

Steve Wilsons Porcupine Tree stuff is great because he knows that
music and knows how it has to sound and I am pretty sure he listens to
it and does QC before it gets out there because it is alot harder to
make jumbo sales off a Porcupine Tree CD then it is to get sales from
a killer classic like Aqualung.
I won't start on Steve Hoffmann because believe me your email will
fail with all the opinionated responses to his errr... Work
(butchering).

People like Geof (Jeff) Emmerick, Alan Parsons started with the
Beatles at EMI mixing on crude equipment which you were lucky to have
any good resolution. But somehow they produced superb fidelity without
the use of 48/96 technology and such. Today those recordings sell for
hundreds of dollars in a ancient format while our nice clean digital
remasters on Blue Ray sell for pennies on the dollar. So is high
resolution digital better?

And with the exception of James Guthrie, the guys I mentioned above,
and Roy Halee (S&G) John Mutt Lange (multiple artists from Shnia Twain
to AC/DC some good some bad) ect.. Do you see any of those guys
remastering things for the digital world. I think not. Thats why we
see these other guys doing things they have no business doing.

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 2:03:07 PM1/14/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I was just listening to that Stan Getz album from 63 with the "Girl from Ipenema" (Dont kill me i hate spell check) and was floored at how wonderful it sounded from 1963.  WTF?!?!  Why can't 'The Age of Adz' sound so effortless!   FWIW I'm not listening thru headphone but thru B&W's and I hear hardly a hiss.  Most of the musical information thankfully suffers none of it.  U only hear the tape hiss or what have you in the absolute silence--Pretty wild they were able to get the noise floor so low with that tech.  I have mixed feelings about what Steve Wilson does.  Not so mixed about Guthrie.  The Bay City Rollers sound about right.  In fact Id prefer he stick to surround sound recordings by them.  S-A-T-U-R  D-A-Y NIGHT!  That'd be fun as he obviously takes himself seriously!  Seriously who wouldn't love that?  Better than butchering Pink Floyd.  Frankly I'd have preferred Steve Wilson to Guthrie as at least Wilson has legitimately discrete mixes.  He takes some liberties but I loved what he did with King Crimson.  And the influence it had on his recent blu ray, which in my opinion was the best thing to come out of music the entire year, was obvious.  In fact, I really wish someone like him would do something with a great album released in the last year or two!  Getting a bit tired of these re-re-re-re-re releases!  I know everyone over 40 tends to worship at the alter of the 1970's (it wasn't a bad time certainly) but seriously can I get some new music in surround?  It can be 24/48 16/96 WHATEVER!

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Britre <brit...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually it is not to say 44.1/16 is perfectly fine it is to say it
starts with source then whatever sampling format you use should be
sufficient. The problem comes in QC of the product, dithering as said
in the article, remastering by eliminating tape noise if oresent and
artifacts from analog tape all cause a loss of fidelity and
transparency.

For a comparison take the 2000 WYWH Floyd reissue, the DVD-A at 640K
stereo, the vinyl and the Blue Ray disc. The Blu Ray wins hands down
with the vinyl as a second because it is the best reproducer of the
original source. But ask yourself is the original source good? Would
it have sounded better had it been properly mastered for the forum it
was on? Why does theQuad on the same disc DVD-V and same 640k give

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 2:35:18 PM1/14/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
One reason the Aqualung remixes have less hiss than the original two-track
master is because at least one, and possible more than one, generation of
bounce downs has been removed. It's possible, but not certain, that NR
also could have been applied to one or more of the tracks of the
multitrack. It only takes one noisy track to make a final mix noisy, after
all.

Perhaps we should refrain from condemnatory speculation on what was and
was not done in the mixing suite, in the absence of testimony from Mssrs.
Wilson, Guthrie, etc??

realafrica

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 7:28:44 PM1/14/12
to SurroundSound
I find these opinions interesting, but I hear a definite difference
playing the same music at 16 bit and 24 bit.
I have many vinyl rips with 16/44 versions of the same recording also
at 24/96 and the 24/96 is always better, although the 16/44 is good
too.
The 16/44 would be good enough to enjoy until I heard the 24/96.
There is a massive audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96!
To say otherwise is to admit to either being partially deaf or
listening on such crap equipment that it can't make a distinction
between the 2.

Britre

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 9:11:12 PM1/14/12
to SurroundSound
We should create samples by the best rippers of all digital formats
and see the differences in everyones hearing. Anyone have a suggestion
for source music? I would like to try something we know is good no
matter what such as Steely Dan Aja or one of the older crooner
recordings Sinatra, Williams, Glen Campbell? I have a pristine Wichta
Lineman that would be a great test.
> > Wilson, Guthrie, etc??- Hide quoted text -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 2:56:17 AM1/15/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I'm with MWC on this one.  Having recorded, mixed and mastered within the confines of 16/44 and 16/48 my entire experience of digital recording, I can attest that the difference is radical.  Yes, the source dictates the needed rates.  A 24/96 of a crappy recording is just a more pristine copy of a crappy recording.  Yet, listening to a hi rez copy of a high quality source in comparison to the RBCD is no contest...
S

Britre

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 12:03:42 PM1/15/12
to SurroundSound
Another thing subjective to the conversation is playback hardware I.E.
DAC's. A poor design will make any RBCD sound worse than a 24/96 of
the same material. However a properly designed and implemented DAC
could out perform the best Blu Ray using RBCD. Goes back to my car
discussion. We are of the assumption more is better and in some cases
yes....Also if your RBCD is constantly correcting errors there is a
big issue. 24/96 is forgiving and does not require as much correction
as the RBCD standard. I personally always have perfect discs and try
to use good source, levels and no compression in my mastering. The
same can not be said for commercially produced RBCD. May be why the
DVD-A or BR of the same material sounds astoundingly night and day
better than RBCD. My example of this is two fold. Stones Let It Bleed
and The Who Tommy. Do the comparison and you will find a dark and
light difference there of the same stereo material. And that was SACD.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 1:47:27 PM1/15/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
This is something that's been brought up time and time again but bears repeating.  Much of all this depends on what's being done at the engineering and mastering level.  You can make a crappy 24/96 just as easily as you can a 16/44.  Much of the differences in DVD-As had lots to do with HOW they were mixed, not just the attendant increase in bandwidth.  I'd say the difference becomes more profound in the multichannel arena.  There the differences become night and day.  But as someone said above a crappy recording is going to be just as crappy in 24/96.  You might restore some bass information and a few lost details but it doesn't (at least to my ears) have the same profundity I experience when that soundscape is opened up among other channels.  I certainly hear a difference.  It's not the same leap in stereo as it is in quad or 5.0, or 5.1 IMHO.  24/96 is coming whether it makes a difference or not.  Numbers sell.  Eventually the planets will align and the studios will be releasing this stuff.  Whether it will be any good...probably not.  The loudness wars seem more of a cure to the current state of recording than simply adding more bits and samples.  That said even HDCD's with 4 virtual bits of extra information can make a big difference by raising the noise floor and dithering the least significant bits into focus.  I'm on the fence on this one!  Hard to hear Gillian Welch's new album and not think 16/44 isn't only good enough but seemingly just right.  Siamese Dream on the other hand benefitted slightly from the increase in bandwidth but not to the degree where I'd pay 30 bucks for it.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

Britre

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 2:29:29 PM1/15/12
to SurroundSound
OK. I have posted on Demonoid 4 samples of Glen Campbell's Wichita
Lineman from a first pressing black label Capitol LP. I choose this
because it is very dynamic, has lots of weird detail and was recorded
extremely well with no compression or other artifact added.

The files are 192/32, 96/32, 48/32 and Red Book standard 44.1/16

Please coment on any differences you hear. I personally found a
slightly better resolution on the orchestrations and Glen's voice at
192/32 but not so much as to be a ultra dramatic difference. Maybe my
DAC is not as good as others. Let's find out.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 14, 2012, 8:06:40 PM1/14/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I find these opinions interesting, but I hear a definite difference
> playing the same music at 16 bit and 24 bit.
> I have many vinyl rips with 16/44 versions of the same recording also
> at 24/96 and the 24/96 is always better, although the 16/44 is good
> too.
> The 16/44 would be good enough to enjoy until I heard the 24/96.
> There is a massive audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96!
> To say otherwise is to admit to either being partially deaf or
> listening on such crap equipment that it can't make a distinction
> between the 2.
>

Or it's to acknowledge the very well established fact that the mind is
very easily fooled about such matters. And that's why serious researchers
use (double) blind methods to investigate such matters.

realafrica

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 5:18:37 PM1/15/12
to SurroundSound
Well Steven, The 'scientific' double blind test has also been totally
debunked by some.

Personally I only concern myself with what I can hear on my equipment,
which is mediocre, but with some consideration for a brighter future
when my equipment will be better. I just hope my ears stay working
well enough.
I have said that 24/96 is far superior to 16/44.1 when using a good
vinyl source of a dynamic recording.
I have also heard some 16/44.1 flacs of a vinyl that were not improved
much by a 24/96 version of the same, but in this case it was probably
down to the 16/441 being exceptionally good due the very high quality
equipment used to produce the rip in the 1st place. (think PBTHALL)
For me, on my equipment, I hear a distinct audible difference between
16/44 and 24/96 from the same good source.

Having had my ears exposed to top quality 24/96 DVD-Audio I can no
longer listen to any MP3.
I have also noticed a slight improvement in SQ when the same source is
ripped to 24/192 on some albums, but not on others.

Then one has to factor in the space taken on the HDD and the extra
buying cost eg @ HDTRacks for a 24/176 over a 24/88 and assess if the
small gain in sound quality is worth it.

Britre

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 5:46:24 PM1/15/12
to SurroundSound
File space is also the rub, well stated. There are four versions of my
Wichita Lineman sample equaling over 500 MB's. Thats 50 minutes of
music as a 44.1/16 file. So you can see the realestate 192/32 files
would take if one were to exclusivly work in that genre.

I have listened to PBTHAL's work and it is very good with a few
exceptions due to source used. I do believe he would have the same
quality results at a lower bitrate. For example I have the Sarah
McLachlan Surfacing 200 gram LP he also ripped and his 96/24 rip side
by side with my 44/16 render no difference in quality at all. That is
not to say his work is inferior as indeed it is excellent and well
done. It is to say however the sample rate is not as crucial as the
source material and the way in which the material is transfered.
> > use (double) blind methods to investigate such matters.- Hide quoted text -

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 6:51:26 PM1/15/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I think the high res container would make a big difference when ripping vinyl.  Commercial recordings can sound as good or better in CD.  The reverse is true as well.

--
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

Britre

unread,
Jan 16, 2012, 10:02:38 PM1/16/12
to SurroundSound
I guess no one heard any difference between 192/32 and 44.1/16
samples?

Another thing I found. As I transfer some things recorded and 192/32
down to 44.1/16 for cd playing in the car there seems no loss in
resolution or transparency. The thoery being you master as high as
possible to have as many samples as possible and when you go down
there is very little if any info missing. This may also be why people
hear differences in things mastered at high bit and sample resolution.
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog- Hide quoted text -

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 15, 2012, 5:59:56 PM1/15/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Well Steven, The 'scientific' double blind test has also been totally
> debunked by some.
>

So, research scientists are going to take some Absolute Sound/Stereophile
polemicist seriously, and stop using DBTs. Right. Peer-reviewed journals
of psychoacoustics will start accepting papers that rely on sighted
comparisons methods. Right. That's what a DBT being 'totally debunked'
would mean, but of course, that actually hasn't happened at all.

And I hope you're aware that use of double-blind methods isn't limited
audio research.


> Personally I only concern myself with what I can hear on my equipment,
> which is mediocre, but with some consideration for a brighter future
> when my equipment will be better. I just hope my ears stay working
> well enough.
> I have said that 24/96 is far superior to 16/44.1 when using a good
> vinyl source of a dynamic recording.

Well, since the effective 'resolution' of vinyl hardly even approaches 16
bits, and the audibility and fidelity of vinyl content above 20kHz is
problematic at best, it's hard to see why anything beyond Redbook rates
are needed for needledrops, unless one plans to do extensive digital
postprocessing (in which case, do it at 24 or 32 bits).


Btw it's not just me. The author of one of the best vinyl restoration
tools out there considers 16bits and 44/48 kHz SR to be entirely adequate
for vinyl transfer to digital:

http://www.delback.co.uk/wavrep/16bit.shtml

realafrica

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 9:52:51 PM1/17/12
to SurroundSound
OK Steven
Your arguments sound like you read too much of other people's opinions
and don't listen to enough hi res music with enough attention.
I give up the debate.
You enjoy your 16/44.1 and save HDD space, while I enjoy my 24/96 and
consider it worth the extra Hdd space.

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 10:30:20 PM1/17/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Forgive me but I'm not sure you guys are even talking about the same thing.  Comparing a vinyl rip done at home to a CD mastered from a 24/32 whatever source for commercial distribution are comparing two completely different things are they not?  If I'm doing a vinyl rip at home I'd likely choose the higher sample rate just to be on the safe side but Steven is correct in that the effective resolution of that LP are quite less than what CD bit rates would be able to cover and then some.  However pleasing vinyl may sound it sounds that way because of distortion.  It may be a happy accident that distortion sounds good (much like SACDs--happy accident it sounds good) but it is distortion that gives it it's flavor however dynamic it may sound.  I don't actually agree with anyone but I have found that the production that goes into an album has a lot more to do with how it sounds than the resolution.  It was not uncommon to spend millions in the 70s to produce an album for release and that is before marketing and that is in 1970's money.  I seriously doubt that more than 1 million goes into any modern production no matter how sophisticated unless it is in the form of a check to the producer, it's not going into making the album sound good.  Yes technology is much more sophisticated, takes less time, blah, blah.  But those seriously resolution challenged recordings that were done 40 or 50 years ago sound just marvelous and they are NOT high res no matter what container you put them in!  The 24 bit writing is on the wall make no mistake.  Its about the only place left for the record industry to go.  Bigger numbers sell whether they're worth the space or not.  That said I want the best possible quality from mic to music.  It's obvious when the recording actually allows it, how much the technology has improved the sound we are getting from CDs.  I'd put a few of the best up there with whatever passes for high res especially in the last few years.  Had the loudness wars not been brewing at the same time we might have actually been able to hear the improvements!

--
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

Britre

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 10:51:17 PM1/17/12
to SurroundSound
Steven Said "Well, since the effective 'resolution' of vinyl hardly
even approaches 16
bits, and the audibility and fidelity of vinyl content above 20kHz is
problematic at best, it's hard to see why anything beyond Redbook
rates
are needed for needledrops, unless one plans to do extensive digital
postprocessing (in which case, do it at 24 or 32 bits). "

I disagree with this statement Steven. While vinyl specs show only
resolution capability of 30hz-30Khz with a 60db noise floor, not only
have listening tests shown that to be conservative, digital audio
spectragrams show the dynamics to be far superior to redbook CD
waveforms. Vinyl additionally is an analog forum so bits and bytes do
not apply.

It is also very pratical as I said before to rip vinyl at a high bit
resolution and then use those to go down to whatever format you need.
This will minimize digital errors and capture everything possible in
the process af archiving. Your article is by an expert who obviously
does not listen to or care much for the real sound of vinyl and
considers it an inferior reproducer. I should think if this is hard
for him to see, he might try listening instead.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 11:08:10 PM1/17/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Steven Said "Well, since the effective 'resolution' of vinyl hardly
> even approaches 16
> bits, and the audibility and fidelity of vinyl content above 20kHz is
> problematic at best, it's hard to see why anything beyond Redbook
> rates
> are needed for needledrops, unless one plans to do extensive digital
> postprocessing (in which case, do it at 24 or 32 bits). "
>
> I disagree with this statement Steven. While vinyl specs show only
> resolution capability of 30hz-30Khz with a 60db noise floor, not only
> have listening tests shown that to be conservative, digital audio
> spectragrams show the dynamics to be far superior to redbook CD
> waveforms. Vinyl additionally is an analog forum so bits and bytes do
> not apply.

Spectrograms aren't a particularly good tool for measuring dynamics -- the
difference over time between the noise floor and the signal -- and even if
they were, they would not show vinyl playback dynamics to be 'far
superior' to 16 bit digital, which can encompass a dynamic range of 96 dB
(even more with dither and noise shaping). And resolution is basically a
function of signal versus noise; as a general rule the more noise there
is, the harder it is for the human ear to resolve small differences. That
applies in both analog and digital realms.

> It is also very pratical as I said before to rip vinyl at a high bit
> resolution and then use those to go down to whatever format you need.
> This will minimize digital errors and capture everything possible in
> the process af archiving. Your article is by an expert who obviously
> does not listen to or care much for the real sound of vinyl and
> considers it an inferior reproducer. I should think if this is hard
> for him to see, he might try listening instead.


So, like realafrica, you've thrown wild, and inaccurate, jabs at someone
you don't know, instead of offering a serious rebuttal. And how very
bizarre that you'd accuse someone who actually went to the trouble of
writing a feature-laden vinyl restoration software tool, of not
appreciating vinyl enough. I'm sure he'd be amused.


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 10:53:06 PM1/17/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> OK Steven
> Your arguments sound like you read too much of other people's opinions
> and don't listen to enough hi res music with enough attention.

And you sound like you don't have a substantial rebuttal, so you've taken
a wild potshot...and missed.

realafrica

unread,
Jan 18, 2012, 9:04:56 PM1/18/12
to SurroundSound
Thank you Britre.
I was beginning to think I was a lone voice, crying in the wilderness
of delusional people, who thing CDs sound better than vinyl!
The only way that can occur is if your home vinyl rip was done on crap
equipment with a bad bit of vinyl compared to a particularly well
mixed and mastered (at 24bit/96kHz) CD.

Britre

unread,
Jan 18, 2012, 10:34:00 PM1/18/12
to SurroundSound
Untrue. Vinyl's only true issue is mechanical noise both surface
produced and media produced. Otherwise it is a far superior method of
reproduction and has been for 80+ years. For at least 70 of those most
music was made on audio Tape and transfered to that medium because
there was no more convinient method. Convinience is where digital
shines and has since day 1. The trade off is a slight loss of
information not decernable to anyone but us audiophiles who were used
to better. Steven, How many good systems did you hear prior to the
digital world? I personally heard many throughout the 70's and early
80's that simply make some of todays equipment and software a sad
attempt to promote perfect reproduction from people who never heard
perfect reproduction in the first place.

To further proove my point listen to any DMM record from the late 80's
or early 80's music made via 16 bit or even 8 bit PCM. Analog
production blew it away. We now have far superior technology to very
accurately capture almost every nuance of analog reproduction yet we
still argue digital is better. Go to the Apple Store and see if you
can buy some 192000/32 music. Nope you are stuck with 44.1/128k music
because that sounds good enough to most people. and what is it?
Convinient.

My rebuttal would be if we could remove the mechanical and other
artifacts from vinyl it is fact it could reproduce a 90 db or better
noise floor, would not be missing information due to sampling or fake
dithering and noise shaping and would be a very accurate way to
reproduce any waveform including music. It is as close as you will get
to the original waveform other than the original waveform.

Same argument applies to surround sound. We now have the technology to
have near perfect surround reproduction and what do we get? Movie
surround. The lazy easy route instead of quality.

Lastly, forgive me my spell checker is not working so some words may
not be correct.

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 5:45:38 AM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Pleased I stayed out of this one for a while.

But for the record (pun intended) test your ears on these.

Let's have some nice examples of bits making a difference; listen to the
Beatles remasters on CD then on the USB stick. Listen to the vocals;
question which are correct? Now get your vinyl copy of your favourite disc.
Copy it to 44/16 then 44/24 listen to the vocals, which one is best?

Now if you have speakers that have real bandwidth (like floorstanders) now
copy the same track to 96/24, listen to vocals again and listen to the
additional space, air and height that was lacking on the 44 version, that's
bits and sampling rates done with.

To me copying vinyl is like playing vinyl; each audiophile has there own
favourite record decks and arms/cartridges/amp combination, - when I listen
to digital vinyl that's what I hear and it sometimes ruins the experience -
it's the old adage crap in = crap out. Nothing better than high end kit
though, great sounding but not sonically neutral, hence some of the great
rips with $$$$££££'s worth of gear.

Sonic Neutrality to me only comes from the tape, which has and always will
be the starting point for older recordings.

Back to bits; For some of us (me) I need this extra space and resolution of
96/24 or similar and I do find that upsampling, although it does not add in
extra data, does make CD sound better and also removes digital greyness,
which is loss of detail on 16 bit.

Onto Aqualung, having now listened to both versions on the BD - that's quad
and 5.1; it sounds to me that the original Quad (and stereo) was very poorly
mastered. First of all the quad version sounds like the (tape) equalisation
was wrong and that some form of studio compression was used. There is also
analogue delay and the whole album has a feedback ring to it.

And that is the difference with the 5.1, I think SW has gone back to the
original source tape, pre-compression, pre-analogue delay (which meant hiss)
and the result is a very dry and to me stunning mix. Iain Anderson has never
sounded so real, Martin Barre sounds tight and the distinct absence of
acoustic feedback (ringing) gives a much firmer sound. Hats off SW to me
this and Discipline are the best remasters (remixes) ever.

--

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 7:42:04 AM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I think people need to be reminded of the limitations in frequency response of LP's.
 
In a nut shell, the bandwidth is limited at the cutting stage (a fourth pole at around 20Khz) after the inverse RIAA equalization so as not to heat up, and damage, the cutter.
 
There was a movement in the 1980's to have this shifted upwards, as methods of keeping the cutting head cool had been improved, but there's no solid proof that this was ever implemented, and it is a mute point seeing as 99% of the albums we are interested in were produced in the previous decade.
 
Then there's the RIAA circuit itself in the pre-amp. By the time any useful information above 20Khz has reached your RIAA pre-amp, its very low in level and then reduced even further by the action of the equalized pre-amp.
 
Again, there was a move in the 1980's to include the fourth pole into the equation in an effort to try and improve the situation, but only a couple of manufacturers went to the trouble of implementing it, basically because it increased noise levels with no real improvement in sound quality as it would require an extra 6db of boost in that range to even attempt to restore the information to it's original level
 
So basically, all this talk of the frequency response of LP's reaching the super highs is just a lot of hear-say.
 
Before you jump up and down, calling me a heretic etc.; let me say one thing:
 
CD-4
 
 
Dave
--
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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4751 - Release Date: 01/18/12

Britre

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 8:31:24 AM1/19/12
to SurroundSound
I was going to also cry "CD-4" given the cutting head needed to go
40khz for carrier which is present on the vinyl and that was done
through special processing. There is also the thoery that vinyl is
reproducing the subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies creating our
pleasureable listening through those methods.

This is what we call half speed mastering to achive higher frequencies
needed for applications and pleasure.

Not to insult you Dave while I think your specs on viynl and cutting
technology are accurate, I do believe vinyl can reproduce well outside
the specs and current )the last 40 years) cutting technology also can
exceed listed specs when half speed mastering or other methodology is
employed..
>   For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 8:51:56 AM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Indeed, CD-4 gave us two things that actually improved the sonic abilities of the LP, that of low noise vinyl and half speed mastering (which was the only way CD-4 albums could be cut)
 
Although i've never been able to find any proof, i would suspect that the inverse RIAA eq before the cutter would have used the alternative 4th pole of just under 50Khz.
 
So, in theory, half-speed mastered albums would be, as they say, the bees knees when it comes to the ultimate in LP playback.
 
It's a shame that, like HDCD for the CD, half-speed mastering didn't become the de-facto standard for all LP releases, but then we now live in a world when quality reproduction is very much a niche market, and heavily limited and compressed music is spoon fed to the masses in the name of the mighty dollar
 
I can't believe that record company's charge almost the same for a dreadfully compressed download of an album as the CD release.
 
As an aside, is much of today's music actually worthy of quality reproduction?
 
 
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4752 - Release Date: 01/18/12

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 12:08:24 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I think so!  Gillian Welch, Sufjam Stevens, Wilco, Radiohead, and I'm missing 10 zillion.  These are the ones off the top of my head--Not certain they would gain a thing by high res.  Most of these sound incredible on CD and I honestly can't imagine the extra bits making a 'bit' of difference.  In fact listening to the 180gr vinyl versions doesn't really improve things either.  

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 12:21:37 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

I’m sure some Radiohead would sound better with more bits, it’s a shame we haven’t heard them. Compare the REM collection, no comparison with CD or for the matter with vinyl, the DVD-As are just so much better. Or Talking Heads etc etc. What is the crying shame is the release of so much music with Dynamic Range Compression -  all so that you can fall under a bus while listening…. Just to remind you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

 


August Bleed

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 12:36:36 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
yeah we have...they released a 24 bit version (Radiohead) last year TKOL.  It was 24/44 I think but it was 24 bit just the same.  Made not a 'bi...er iota of a difference.  
Message has been deleted

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 1:00:37 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
?
Just get your medical cannabis card?

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Tab Cursor <tabc...@gmail.com> wrote:
MY NEPHEW (IN-LAW) HATES DISNEYLAND

===================================

It's true! He feels the rides are scary and the crowds are too loud.

What a pity.

I love Disney. Make the rides scarier! Make the crowds louder!

While the rest of the world enjoys 2-channel MP3s or 2-channel CD
audio, we're rich in audio experiences.

And why shouldn't we? Artists, please, embrace us....

Our group so rules!!!!

I love you all and PM me for personal french-kissing sessions!
--
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

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 12:38:56 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I'm sure some Radiohead would sound better with more bits,

Why? Does Radiohead records tracks with >96dB of dynamic range? To my
knowledge, no, they do not.


> it's a shame we
> haven't heard them. Compare the REM collection, no comparison with CD or
> for
> the matter with vinyl, the DVD-As are just so much better. Or Talking
> Heads
> etc etc.

See the waveform snapshot of a Talking Heads DualDisc (stereo track) in
this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13418313#post13418313

Not a heck of a lot of dynamic range there. Certainly no need for 24 bits
as a delivery format for this audio signal. Yet, it sounds great (IMO).
Could it be that...OTHER choices in the mastering matter *as much or more*
than the bit depth or the peak-to-average ratio?


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 11:54:11 AM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Indeed, CD-4 gave us two things that actually improved the sonic abilities
> of the LP, that of low noise vinyl and half speed mastering (which was the
> only way CD-4 albums could be cut)
>
> Although i've never been able to find any proof, i would suspect that the
> inverse RIAA eq before the cutter would have used the alternative 4th pole
> of just under 50Khz.
>
> So, in theory, half-speed mastered albums would be, as they say, the bees
> knees when it comes to the ultimate in LP playback.
>
> It's a shame that, like HDCD for the CD, half-speed mastering didn't
> become the de-facto standard for all LP releases, but then we now live in
> a world when quality reproduction is very much a niche market, and heavily
> limited and compressed music is spoon fed to the masses in the name of the
> mighty dollar

HDCD was no panacea for compression. As with 'high rez', it was no
guarantee that the actual mastering would retain a large dynamic range.
For many HDCDs, there is no difference in DR between the decoded and
nondecoded states. That's because 'Peak Extension' was optional. So if the
nondecoded version has 'modern' (limited DR) mastering -- as is the case
for the Van Halen HDCDs -- the decoded version doesn't expand on that.

Even *with* Peak Extension I've seen no, zero, examples of HDCD releases
that actually *require* more than 16 bits to capture their full dynamic
range. We're talking about sourcing from analog tapes of acts from the
1970s and 80s -- the content on those tapes already falls within that 96
dB limit.

The one undisputed use for 24 bits is in digital recording and digital
production -- it gives more headroom in the former, and prevents audible
accumulation of rounding errors in the latter. That's it. Assuming the
converters are the same high quality, simply doing a transfer of , say, a
Beatles master tape at 16 vs 24 isn't going to gain you more 'air around
the vocals' or whatever. And certainly *vinyl* , noiser than tape and
noisy enough to be 'self-dithering', isn't going to present a challenge to
16 bit technology.

That's not to say vinyl sounds *bad*. It's just to say vinyl isn't
magical or technically unsurpassable. In fact it's got some well-known
limits, and crucially, some well-known euphonic distortions that are very
likely what give it its 'sound'. And that 'sound' is easily and
*completely* captured on a 16bit/44/kHz needledrop.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 18, 2012, 10:27:27 PM1/18/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
So, now I'm 'delusional'? Shall I tell you what I think you are?

> --

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 12:18:54 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Untrue. Vinyl's only true issue is mechanical noise both surface
> produced and media produced. Otherwise it is a far superior method of
> reproduction and has been for 80+ years.

The historical fact is, the biggest push for digital home audio in the 70s
up through the advent of CD, came from classical music production
professionals and classical fans. Apparently vinyl's well-noted flaws
(which extend beyond 'mechanical noise') were all to real to them.

The rest of your anecdotes are, well, anecdotes.


> My rebuttal would be if we could remove the mechanical and other
> artifacts from vinyl it is fact it could reproduce a 90 db or better
> noise floor,

But you can't remove those artifacts, can you? You can't change the laws
of physics, either.

The fact is without having to remove 'artifacts', redbook digital can
ALREADY reproduce >90dB of dynamic range.

I have this usenet post (by an audio pro I admire) bookmarked for its
succinct rendition of what vinyl is and isn't:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/92fc0487580ffa52?hl=en&dmode=source

NB this part:
"In any case, there is NO way to avoid L-R enhancement, tracing distortions,
surface noise (it's not dirt, it's basic physics), and the like, and
yes, they ARE audible, albeit not very audible at their theoretically
best

Now, there's NO reason not to like their results, since it's been
shown time and time again that they CAN SOUND NICE, but please,
Curtis, accept the fact that your description of LP is not altogether
what you think it is.

Now, my LP system isn't up to yours, I'm sure, but it's interesting,
it does sound REAL NICE for some LP's on some cuts. Now, given the
training I've had (not all by choice) I can easily recognize some of
that "nice" as distortions that sound nice. You know what? I don't
care. Nice is nice."

> would not be missing information due to sampling or fake
> dithering and noise shaping and would be a very accurate way to
> reproduce any waveform including music.

Dither and noise shaping remove information? Yes, that *would* be 'fake',
but I've never heard of it.

> It is as close as you will get
> to the original waveform other than the original waveform.

Actually, no, because there's is physical 'writing' and 'reading' of that
waveform that takes place at multiple steps in the production and playback
of vinyl. Imperfections are introduced at every one. Meanwhile a digital
capture of the master analog tape (which like all media is limited in
bandwidth and 'resolution') can be as complete as you want it to be (you
want to capture that ultrasonic carrier signal? Just up the sample rate)
and more measurably 'perfect' than any process involving scraping or
reading grooves in metal or plastic.


> Same argument applies to surround sound. We now have the technology to
> have near perfect surround reproduction and what do we get? Movie
> surround. The lazy easy route instead of quality.

I *love* surround -- not just surround mixes, all my stereo sources get
upmixed too -- but it is far from perfect right now, if perfect is defined
as accurately reproducing real 360-degree spatial cues (i.e., 3-D 'high
fidelity'). Happily most surround releases aren't even trying to present
that -- they are studio productions where 'spatial' cues are largely
artificial.

As it happens the psychoacoustic imperfections of current surround
technology were being heatedly discussed on AVSforum in the last day or
two -- start at post #42 here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21494687#post21494687

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 11:40:14 AM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Pleased I stayed out of this one for a while.
>
> But for the record (pun intended) test your ears on these.

But make sure you level match and compare blind, if you're comparing tow
audio samples.

> Let's have some nice examples of bits making a difference; listen to the
> Beatles remasters on CD then on the USB stick. Listen to the vocals;
> question which are correct? Now get your vinyl copy of your favourite
> disc.
> Copy it to 44/16 then 44/24 listen to the vocals, which one is best?
>
> Now if you have speakers that have real bandwidth (like floorstanders) now
> copy the same track to 96/24, listen to vocals again and listen to the
> additional space, air and height that was lacking on the 44 version,
> that's
> bits and sampling rates done with.

No,it's not. Not in the least. Sorry. It's just another testimonial
amounting to 'I hear it, so it's real.' That doesn't hold up in the court
of science.


lokkerman

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 6:53:39 PM1/19/12
to SurroundSound
Steven
I have my ears and most folks here would say they are correct...

I am sorry if you cannot hear the difference and therefore all your
debate in my context is totally irrelevant - I can hear the difference
and have been fighting no sayers like you for the past 35 years - and
yes 35 years ago engineers hadn't identified TID and slew rate
distortion and capacitive sound, I suggest you keep your 16 bits and
stuff them up the arse of mp3. 16 bits only sounds good when
everything is linear, non compressed and perfectly recorded.

Sorry for the rant but - when I designed analogue amps years ago folks
said the same of LOFC cable, poly caps, direct coupling, nested
feedback, MOSFETS and valves (tubes), but strangely all of this black
art science is now common place.

I also remember the same debate with my CD450 - (the first real 16 bit
CD player) it was for all the money awful, listen to one now and they
are a mass of grey sounds; what's the reference for this?

So to me this means you have bad ears or speakers or you just like to
be in for an argument for the sake of it.


I'm sorry you cannot share the same expereince as me but I guess some
folks are colourblind and I sympathise with them too, excepting the
fact that colourblindness is known as a disability, wherupon audio
selective deafness appears not to be understood and will be less so
with the modern personal devices we use today.

Also where is your court of science?? purely mathematical I assume?
What about the understanding of genuine differences into why I hear
such a difference that you cannot even comprehend.

Please start to use empathy and understand that folks that can hear
the difference truely can, otherwise you wil offend daily.

Britre

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 9:43:36 PM1/19/12
to SurroundSound
LOL yea black art is right. A guy once tried to sell me these rubber
feet he made in molds in his garage claiming it would reduce
vibrations and hum coming from the air that surrounds us. He was also
involved in something he called a "Tri Phaser" (not Star Trek related)
he claimed removed all the phase anomalies from amplifier to speaker
that cloud the purity of music. You may have seen Acoustic Sounds
selling this item at one time. I never bought into this stuff and
after hearing it in use made me thank my bank I didn't. Many common
items work just as well as esoteric audio products and that is a whole
other discussion for another group.

While on that fun kick, I do agree with Steven in the fact 44.1/16 is
sufficient to capture just about everything vinyl can reproduce
considering it is a superb source to begin with. To the disbelievers
you need to just listen to some modern recordings such as My Morning
Jacket Evil Urges or Circuital, Arcade Fire, The Suburbs, ummm Wilco
Yankee Foxtrot Hotel. Compare to the redbook CD versions and you will
find the vinyl sounds completely different, detailed and transparent.
However, as Steven stated you can't change physics and surface noise
and other artifacts are a fact of life. On the plus side quality has
gone up along with the price. Sometimes I think they are now putting
gold in the Vinyl with the prices I am seeing (The Arcade Fire is
$25.99 at the lowest price!)

And for the record (also pun itended) what I ment by perfect surround
is DVD-A and BDA reproduction of four or more channels in full bitrate
PCM form making it un-nessesary to compress audio anymore and also
allowing engineers to create 360 degrees of spatial sound but..... and
thats the butt surround today is defined as enhanced upmix as you
suggested Steven. You also obviously have the cool surround decoder I
have that makes stereo into surround and does do some pleasing things
to two channels. It is sad that Engineers and artists can do so much
yet do so little and that we as consumers accept it which was my point
about the J.G WYWH. It could have been an experience instead of a
dissapointment. I simply don't accept paying almost $50 for lazyness
and snake oil.
> > of science.- Hide quoted text -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Jan 20, 2012, 6:54:25 AM1/20/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I love your ears Lokks... ;)

Seriously though.... I too have stayed out of this by choice.  However, Lokks is right.  There have been a few occasions where Lokks has pointed out artifacts in a digital file/music/etc that I could hear, but had either willfully ignored (for enjoyment's sake) or otherwise missed.  This could be partly cause he has better equipment than I, or because as great as my ears have been proven to be throughout the years, his are even better.  The point being, that they are noticeable once pointed out (and in some cases, once heard can't be unheard).  Just hazarding a guess, but maybe there is some reason you aren't hearing a difference when the majority of our membership can... or maybe we are all delusional...
S

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 20, 2012, 7:14:39 AM1/20/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

Thanks Stephen; I really think it is down to aural memory which is a bit like wine-tasting with oral memory, once somebody points out an oakey finish you never forget it, like it or dislike it it’s there.

 

I’ve found myself very sensitive to phase, hence all the help I gave to OD on getting the SQ/QS stuff right, some folks cannot hear the difference between in and out of phase and phase delays, but it doesn’t mean that phase doesn’t exist; it has been understood for years.

 

I liken that, with phase,  to what I (we) hear with different bits and sampling rates – what I rally against is denial that it exists as a noticeable entity and can show you journals from years ago when engineers denied that capacitors had an audible effect, yet nowadays dielectric  behaviour is part and parcel of standard audio design.

 

Thinking about it that is the sound difference that you hear on Aqualung, the quad master sounds like it was mastered on a reel to reel with (tired) electrolytic coupling capacitors.

 


Noreltny-gmail

unread,
Jan 21, 2012, 12:11:43 AM1/21/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

Here, here (or I should say hear, hear!!). There are loads of good contemporary musicians. Adding to August’s, check out Battles and Elbow. Two bands that I’d love to hear in surround.

 

Battles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-CXtJA34QGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7RzUtFEps&feature=related (be sure to skip the ad)

 

or Elbow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMD7FIpq11Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfVejpYc8Zc&feature=related

 

There’s lots of great new music.

 

From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of August Bleed
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:08 AM
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

 

I think so!  Gillian Welch, Sufjam Stevens, Wilco, Radiohead, and I'm missing 10 zillion.  These are the ones off the top of my head--Not certain they would gain a thing by high res.  Most of these sound incredible on CD and I honestly can't imagine the extra bits making a 'bit' of difference.  In fact listening to the 180gr vinyl versions doesn't really improve things either.  

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 7:49:37 PM1/19/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Steven
> I have my ears and most folks here would say they are correct...

OK then, we can stop right here. Apparently what 'most people here'
believe trumps a century of scientific investigation in to perception of
sound. That's usually things go in discussions with 'audiophiles'.


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 20, 2012, 12:26:43 PM1/20/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Someone please point out exactly where I made any claims about what *I*
hear or don't hear.

This isn't about me putting my testimonials or anecdotes or 'ears' up
against Lokkerman's or anyone else's. As such anecodotes have zero
dispositive value to me, I'd hardly expect mine to prove anything to you.

It's interesting though, that you guys instantly chose to read it as 'my
ears vs yours' and immediately descended to the level of disparaging my
ears/equipment/disposition. I suspect 'bragging rights' are in play here.
I also suspect that a good level-matched, double blind test of one's
'golden ears' would be most revealing.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 20, 2012, 12:32:08 PM1/20/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Thanks Stephen; I really think it is down to aural memory which is a bit
> like wine-tasting with oral memory, once somebody points out an oakey
> finish
> you never forget it, like it or dislike it it's there.

Yet blind testing has also found an important place in wine tasting.
Often with amusing results. Sense memory is not perfect, after all, and
we humans have an endless capacity to fool ourselves into 'certainty'.


> I've found myself very sensitive to phase, hence all the help I gave to OD
> on getting the SQ/QS stuff right, some folks cannot hear the difference
> between in and out of phase and phase delays, but it doesn't mean that
> phase
> doesn't exist; it has been understood for years.

Phase matters in some instances, and not so much in others.


> I liken that, with phase, to what I (we) hear with different bits and

> sampling rates - what I rally against is denial that it exists as a


> noticeable entity and can show you journals from years ago when engineers
> denied that capacitors had an audible effect, yet nowadays dielectric
> behaviour is part and parcel of standard audio design.

And that's because of scientific tests showing the conditions under which
capacitors became audibly different? Where were these published?

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 20, 2012, 12:14:26 AM1/20/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> LOL yea black art is right. A guy once tried to sell me these rubber
> feet he made in molds in his garage claiming it would reduce
> vibrations and hum coming from the air that surrounds us. He was also
> involved in something he called a "Tri Phaser" (not Star Trek related)
> he claimed removed all the phase anomalies from amplifier to speaker
> that cloud the purity of music. You may have seen Acoustic Sounds
> selling this item at one time. I never bought into this stuff and
> after hearing it in use made me thank my bank I didn't. Many common
> items work just as well as esoteric audio products and that is a whole
> other discussion for another group.
>
> While on that fun kick, I do agree with Steven in the fact 44.1/16 is
> sufficient to capture just about everything vinyl can reproduce
> considering it is a superb source to begin with.
> To the disbelievers
> you need to just listen to some modern recordings such as My Morning
> Jacket Evil Urges or Circuital, Arcade Fire, The Suburbs, ummm Wilco
> Yankee Foxtrot Hotel. Compare to the redbook CD versions and you will
> find the vinyl sounds completely different, detailed and transparent.

Think about what you've written here. It means you could hook your preamp
up to an ADC and capture 'just about everything' including that 'detail'
and 'transparency' on a CD (I'd say you'd capture *everything* that's
audible, actually). So what does that say about the relative 'superbness'
of 14/44 vs vinyl? For a more fun thought experiment, consider the
reverse case -- start with a 'superbly' recorded CD, and feed the output
of the CDP to disc cutter. Which process do you think will results in the
most accurate copy?


> And for the record (also pun itended) what I ment by perfect surround
> is DVD-A and BDA reproduction of four or more channels in full bitrate
> PCM form making it un-nessesary to compress audio anymore and also
> allowing engineers to create 360 degrees of spatial sound but.....

To the extent that can be done today, that can be done with lossy encoded
signals as well as lossless. So 'perfection' needs a different
definition.

> and
> thats the butt surround today is defined as enhanced upmix as you
> suggested Steven.

Not really. Some surround mixes are more 'aggressive' than others, is
all. Few of them have much to do with actually *reproducing* a 360 degree
sound field from a real space. And ones that did would rarely if ever
have guitars coming from the rear speakers except as echo. A lot of
people heare probably wouldn't like them. I've noticed that what
'surroundophiles' tend to like are effects that don't even pretend to
mimic real space. More like a multichannel version of hard panning.


> You also obviously have the cool surround decoder I
> have that makes stereo into surround and does do some pleasing things
> to two channels.

I use Dolby Pro Logic IIX. Pretty standard stuff nowadays. Still cool
though.


> It is sad that Engineers and artists can do so much
> yet do so little and that we as consumers accept it which was my point
> about the J.G WYWH. It could have been an experience instead of a
> dissapointment. I simply don't accept paying almost $50 for lazyness
> and snake oil.

Of course you get to believe that it is 'laziness and snake oil' rather
than aesthetic choice -- but absent hard evidence or testimony from those
involved, it's nothing more than a belief.

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 6:30:04 AM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I do think you need to rethink your views on the issue of phase. It's a very deep issue, and it does depend on what area your discussing.
 
I believe Lokks was talking about the issues relating to the decoding of the matrix systems (sorry but i've lost track of this thread and your slightly confusing multiple threads) which is an important issue when related to acquiring accurate imagery from the matrix systems.
 
Phase is important in other areas as well, you just need to be sure you state exactly what your talking about when discussing it

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 6:43:23 AM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Neither, it's a silly thing to suggest. Either way will be corrupted due to losses in the process's
 
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a clue about the technicalities of audio.
 
Oh and by the way what is so high quality about 14/44?
 
I'd like to make a point here. It is now accepted that 16/44.1 is not good enough for accurate musical reproduction. It requires a minimum of 24/48 to accurately capture all the nuances of music, but to do recordings justice (and to ensure that future is best served) all recordings should be at 32/96

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 6:44:54 AM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
'Perfection' = Lossless. No argument!!!!

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 6:48:03 AM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
HA HA HA HA HA, you've given yourself away. Perhaps you should try some real quality!

Britre

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 11:35:55 AM1/22/12
to SurroundSound
What Dave has said here in fact is proved. The Earmark releases of ELP
on 180 gram vinyl are indeed said to be from a digital redbook master
and indeed the vinyl reflects that sound when played. In my opinion I
also suspect the James Guthrie Stereo of WYWH and DSOTM were cut by
the same method with the RIAA curve applied. Lokkerman would be right
in that case crap in=crap out.

Not so sure about this 44/14 discussion as we don't discuss vinyl per-
say as bits and bytes. The physics suggest however when you take a
curve and sample it as 1's and 0's it really can never be as accurate
as a medium making a exact copy of that wave form as it is. The
problem becomes when after the recording things are introduced which
cloud the playback of said waveform even though your medium was
accurate. In that sense any digital recording could never be accurate
at any resolution which makes Dave right as far as 44.1/16 being
perfectly sufficient to record any vinyl, tape, live source, or
anything us humans can physically hear. I checked with my dog too and
apparently the dog whistle redbook compact disc is audiable to him as
he went balistic when I played it. I didn't hear anyhing however. I
must be deaf above 22khz.

Another thing to consider. Some of these 48/96 and higher BDA's and
DVD-A are made at a much higher Quality Control factor than your
average redbook CD which might be why they do sound significantly
better than what we are all used too.

I also agree with Lok that using the highest rate available in your
mastering process eliminates the crap in issue so later in life no
mater what you playback at you have a great experience.

And yes I was caught with my surround decoder on enjoying stereo. Oh
well....Dave I considered that decoder but at the time was more than I
could afford. I really should revisit the surround decoder hardware
store...

lokkerman

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 11:41:58 AM1/22/12
to SurroundSound
I wil dig out some old documents on the capacitor debate, and class A,
versus AB operation, slew induced distortion, the benefit or not of
nested feedback. And the most classic of all, that all amplifiers
sound the same. All of these topics were beyond the science of the
time and these were subject to massive debate and this was only 30
years ago.

As and example - I had a really odd party trick that I could play on
almost every CD player good or bad. Clean the CD with household
silicon polish and listen to the difference. Non hi-fi friends and
relatives spotted the diffrence immediately and preferred the
"cleaned" sound; why? I am not a snake-oil salesman I want to know
scientifically why this works contrary to all of the assumed logic of
error correction, jitter circuits, laser feedback loops etc. It was
this technique that rescued my CD collection and at least made it
listenable.

Back to analogue. I am fortunate to own 2 Ferrograph Logic 7 Reel to
Reel recorders; they were renowned for sounding astounding, very rich
but deep base and a beautiful mid to top. The BBC used them in numbers
and certain BBC live concerts were mixed down to stereo on this
machines. I found that I could record a CD onto one of the machines
and on play back the CD sounded better. I then copied this tape onto
my Philips CDR and it sounded nicer than the original; I suggest that
this may happen with some of the cutting masters, that is the original
is digital and the cutter adds in the sonic signature to make the
playback on analogue sound better.

It therefore brings me to my final point that concerns me and that is
just because some folks cannot hear what I hear, or what others hear
for that matter, It doesn't mean it's imaginery, and I genuinely
object to folks saying that it is. That approach is patronising. So
please beg to differ but do not imply that this is an ego thing and
that there is some form of audio pecking order, there is not. We
exist here because we enjoy music and we strive all the time to get
closer to the original. Hi-Res in a lot of circumstances does just
that. Surround probably because of the extra channel spread doesn't
have such a track density of stereo and so should resort in a clearer
presentation.

Britre

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 12:03:39 PM1/22/12
to SurroundSound
If I recall correctly that Phillips CDR was 44.1/16?

We should not discuss open reel decks here as it will tun into a post
fest. Those I will agree are top of the line and lots of what we
treasure today started out on that sub-par way below 44.1/16
hardware.....

I remember that Amplifier debate. That showed us how many different
amplifier circuits humans could design to achieve the same result.
Definition of a fool LOL

Don't forget the black sharpie around the edge of the disc made it
sound warm andd fuzzy like vinyl. and the Black mat dampners you put
over the cd to stabilize and increase reflectivity. Lot's of hogwash
during those audiophile days when the hobby was red hot! Perhaps that
is why we lost three audiophile magazines in 10 years due to their
interest in the black audio arts...
> >   though.- Hide quoted text -

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 12:08:34 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Thanks an interesting party trick. Have you ever thought about doing any tests to see if it's possible to show that improving the reflectivity if the CD improves the reflected signal, thus possibly reducing the work needed to be done by the error correction circuitry

lokkerman

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 12:12:25 PM1/22/12
to SurroundSound
I guesses this too but back in the days of Armor-All fad this was
tried and the results inconclusive.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 3:08:40 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> HA HA HA HA HA, you've given yourself away. Perhaps you should try some
> real quality!

And your braying here tells me something about you, too.


> > You also obviously have the cool surround decoder I
> > have that makes stereo into surround and does do some pleasing things
> > to two channels.
>
> I use Dolby Pro Logic IIX. Pretty standard stuff nowadays. Still cool
> though.
>

> --

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 3:05:09 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Neither, it's a silly thing to suggest. Either way will be corrupted due
> to losses in the process's

All reproduction that isn't purely digital-to-digital results in loss.
Physics again.

So there will be *measurable* losses in both. Which will be greater? And
which losses will be more likely to be *audible*?

Or, to pose the entirely non-silly question that you've tried to danc away
from: again: Which process do you think will results in the most accurate
copy?

> I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a clue about the
> technicalities of audio.
>

Same here, about you.


> Oh and by the way what is so high quality about 14/44?

Oh, and by thew way, what exactly isn't?


> I'd like to make a point here. It is now accepted that 16/44.1 is not good
> enough for accurate musical reproduction. It requires a minimum of 24/48
> to accurately capture all the nuances of music, but to do recordings
> justice (and to ensure that future is best served) all recordings should
> be at 32/96

Says who, exactly?

Here is the 'utility' of >16.44 in a nutshell:

It's been known for a long time (Fielder's old work) that a live recording
of a close mike'd orchestra playing at its loudest might require up to
118db of headroom to capture without distortion. That 'worst case'
scenario would necessitate more than 16 bits, but less than 24. Digital
*recording* is typically done at 24 these days simple to allow for a rare
peak.

It's been known for a long time that it is safer to do intense digital
signal processing at 24 bits or higher, rather than 16, to prevent the
accumulated tiny quantization errors from having an audible effect.
Digitial *processing* is typically done at 24 or 32 bits for this reason.
Conversion to 16 bits as the final step in production of a consumer
format, accrues no audible damage at normal listening levels, when done
properly.

It's been know for a long time that higher sample rates render
*potentially* audible issues with antialiasing and imaging filters moot.
So that is a matter of convenience, not necessity. The audible utility,
such as it is, is not in the capture of higher frequencies than 22 kHz.

>
>
> Think about what you've written here. It means you could hook your
> preamp
> up to an ADC and capture 'just about everything' including that 'detail'
> and 'transparency' on a CD (I'd say you'd capture *everything* that's
> audible, actually). So what does that say about the relative
> 'superbness'
> of 14/44 vs vinyl? For a more fun thought experiment, consider the
> reverse case -- start with a 'superbly' recorded CD, and feed the output
> of the CDP to disc cutter. Which process do you think will results in
> the
> most accurate copy?
>
>

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 3:07:57 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
No audio reproduction method is 'lossless' compared objectively to the
original acoustic event. Certainly not surround sound as we have it today
and certainly not 'stereo' either. So you'd best use a different
definition of perfection...or maybe abandon the idea that 'perfection' is
required in the first place, to have a subjectively pleasant experience.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 2:03:13 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I wil dig out some old documents on the capacitor debate, and class A,
> versus AB operation, slew induced distortion, the benefit or not of
> nested feedback. And the most classic of all, that all amplifiers
> sound the same. All of these topics were beyond the science of the
> time and these were subject to massive debate and this was only 30
> years ago.
>

'Beyond the science of the time'? That's simply nonsense. Home audio, if
anything, has typically lagged behind science. (Jitter was a well-known
phenomenon in communications science before it became a topic of [usually
hysterical] discussion in audio). Loudspeaker and room DSP makers today
are benefiting from the scientific work performed by people like Toole and
Olive at Harman.

And I am very well aware of debates as 'all amplifiers sound the same'
(which was NEVER the claim btw), having been tracking them since the
1980s. You might want to look up the best article of the bunch --
"The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are Your Loudspeakers Turning Your Amplifier
into a Tone Control?" E. Brad Meyer, Stereo Review, June 1991, page 5


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 1:58:47 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

Polishing a CD/DVD can of course repair audible *glitches* (and they will
be *glitches*, audible skips or pops or non-play, not some sense of 'it
just sounds better, veil removed, tightened bass ' etc -- that's not how
error correction works) due to scratches on the 'shiny' side. Don't use
Armor All, though -- Sam Tellig of Stereophile in the early 1990s famously
made a fool of himself recommending this, and then had to run a retraction
telling readers how to remove it, because of its potential to cloud the
'play' surface of the CD. Personally, I'd be wary of something that stays
'wet', being flung around inside my CDP. When I need to remove CD
scratch, I use a car or plastic polish that dries and can be buffed off.
And you have to be careful not to remove too much of the plastic and thus
irremediably damage the disc.

Britre

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 10:01:37 PM1/22/12
to SurroundSound
I would be careful quoting and citing Mr. Meyer's articles. Thats all
I will say about that having been a Stereo Review reader since 1973..

Stephen Disney

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 2:58:55 AM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Steven... I am stuck with how certain you are of everything you say.  So why is it even open to discussion?  (or faux discussion?)  Arguments could be made about why higher rez captures sound better (whether it be from harmonics or whatever else you choose to strike down), but I get the impression it wouldn't matter.  I am certainly open to you being right, but I think most of the people here hear a difference that you don't.  Doesn't make you wrong or us better, just means you don't hear it.  As you pointed out, what you hear is all that matters to you and our perception is only relevant to us, so it would seem the case is closed.
S

Stephen Disney

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 2:59:26 AM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
stuck=struck

RW

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 8:09:35 AM1/23/12
to SurroundSound
What I find amusing about this whole discussion is that folks seem to
forget that no matter how *good* your recording device is, and no
matter how good your playback devices are, you still cannot recreate
the recorded event *exactly* because you are, inevitably, playing the
event back into a room and air space that is quite unlike that found
at the original event. The size, shape, air density, temperature, and
atmospheric composition are all different This dooms you to failure
right up front, no getting around it.

However, it doesn't mean that we cannot enjoy that which is playing
back to us. The mind is an incredible and mysterious device. And I
find I can derive immense pleasure from listeing to a long-forgotten
tune thru a shitty car system. Does it sound just like the original
event? Hardly. Do I love it nonetheless? Damn straight.

So, in closing, I would like to ask that we all just endeavor to get
along and agree that we will always be chasing perfection but will
never achieve it...

-RW-

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 11:53:18 AM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I read this and thought you said "I would like to ask that we endeavor to get analog..." then thought isn't that a weird thing to say...doh!

--
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

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 5:58:11 PM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
It's hard to carry on the debate even further - oddly I can remember a discussion a while ago on the 'noid with someone that insisted that the WYWH master  we used for our rework was not the one we used, incredible when we named the source.
Steven you are a definite nay sayer whatever so we must beg to differ  - flat and earth spring to mind,  Or should it be cuboid?  The point is that i know what I hear which is what got me into audio in the first place i.e. I had no choice because I love it so much and I will not have sleepless nights at night because I know what CD sounds like and what 24 bits sound like and 48k versus 96k, I just wish you could because you really don't know what you are missing.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 22, 2012, 11:11:48 PM1/22/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
If you have a substantial objections to the points made in the article I
cited, I'd be most interested to read them. Insinuations don't count
though. I cite Meyer to counter to fallacy that one side of the 'great
debate' claims 'all amps sound the same' Meyer's article is precisely
about the conditions under which amps are likely to sound *different*.
That's a phenomenon that didn't require any 'catch up' on science's part.

In the meantime you might well drag out those old issues of SR and check
out Tom Nousaine's articles describing blind tests of audio components.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 2:03:16 PM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Again, I haven't once written about what I claim to hear or not hear.
People here may assert that they hear things I (supposedly) don't hear. My
question is what is that *belief* based on? If it just boils down to
'well, I hear it, that's enough' -- I'm saying that, by itself, doesn't
prove a thing. There's a huge margin for error there.

I'm focusing on two things, 1)what Redbook and 'hi rez' measurably do and
don't do and 2)how easy it is for *anyone* to fool themselves into
'hearing' a difference that isn't real. That second one isn't just
conjecture, it's a fact so well established that scientists who do
research into perception of audio *must* use double-blind methods, in
order to have have their results taken seriously (or published at all).

Controls like that don't guarantee a correct answer but they do at least
filter out a lot of the 'noise'.

--S

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 8:22:32 PM1/23/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> It's hard to carry on the debate even further - oddly I can remember a
> discussion a while ago on the 'noid with someone that insisted that the
> WYWH master we used for our rework was not the one we used, incredible
> when we named the source.
> Steven you are a definite nay sayer whatever so we must beg to differ -
> flat and earth spring to mind,

Actually, a 'flat earther' historically would be one who ignores the
science, and just believes what 'feels' right to them. Closer to "I trust
my ears' than 'how do you know your ears are right?'

> Or should it be cuboid? The point is that
> i know what I hear which is what got me into audio in the first place i.e.
> I had no choice because I love it so much and I will not have sleepless
> nights at night because I know what CD sounds like and what 24 bits sound
> like and 48k versus 96k, I just wish you could because you really don't
> know what you are missing.

Just keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine.

realafrica

unread,
Jan 23, 2012, 10:12:14 PM1/23/12
to SurroundSound
Steven you are so sad. I feel so sorry for you. All you seem to be
able to enjoy is your scientific theories and the conclusions you have
gathered from other people.
Why not try to be a little bit more human and just listen to some nice
24/96 music and then compare it to the same album in redbook and
finally tell us what you hear or don't actually hear?
No more quotes from whomever, just tell us what you hear and feel when
listening to nice music at 24bit/96kHz or 16bit/44.1kHz, please.

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 4:44:41 AM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
May i also suggest you listen to a HDCD encoded disc on a HDCD equipped player. The difference is noticeable, and like all music played in a higher res that 16/44.1, especially in the bass.
 
Let me tell you a story (copyright - Max Bygraves)
 
A friend of mine runs a recording studio, and i was involved in tests he ran when he was testing his new Pro-Tools setup to determine whether the improvements of 24 bit recording and 48/96k sampling rate
 
After many tests, it was decided that 24bit trounced 16 bit in every respect, but that there was actually hardly any difference between 48k and 96k sampling.
 
This was done with normal instruments that would be used in what we would term a 'group'.
 
BUT a later test, which i wasn't involved in, with a string quartet showed that 96k sampling was preferred over 48k. It would make sense in that the harmonic structure of classical stringed instruments is far richer than modern 'electric' instruments.
 
Although he recorded using 16bit, he could never go back to it after tasting the improved detail afforded by 24 recording
--
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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4761 - Release Date: 01/23/12

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 12:41:02 PM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
but it's not scientifically proven so a waste of bits and HDD space; lol

elshagon

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 2:28:49 PM1/24/12
to SurroundSound
I could care less what anyone has to say, I simply go with what I know
sounds best to me. I've also done a number of comparison's of the
same music at different resolutions, mp3, cd, ac3 and dvd-audio. If
the bitrate is kept high on mp3 it's sometimes difficult to pick it
out between mp3 and cd, but I can determine between ac3 and dvd-audio
every time. And if you're comparing mp3 or cd to dvd-audio it's a
joke. And its not just me, when I have friends listen at my home or
in my car they are blown away by dvd-audio and its higher resolution.
To a lot of people "listening" to music means whatever's playing in
the background during their conversation. I enjoy turning it up and
enjoying just the music. This debate over what can be heard or not
heard has gone on many times on many forums. Simply listen to what
sounds best to you and be done with it.

On Jan 24, 9:41 am, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but it's not scientifically proven so a waste of bits and HDD space; lol
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Dave Cooper <davecooper1...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > **

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 3:11:21 PM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
couldn't agree more elshagon

August Bleed

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 3:32:14 PM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Thats why I sat this one out.  It's not something that will be resolved.  As I said we are moving that way whether we want it to move that way or not.  More bits are going to sell--there are no more marketing schemes left for the studios to fall back on.  Whether they sound better or not is frankly immaterial as far as the folks selling us commercial music are concerned.  That should be obvious at this point.  So while there are clear examples showing benefits to high res, clear examples of it sounding worse, the fact that there are examples of both would seem to suggest neither side is right.  Comparisons to vinyl?  Unless there is some new surround format that is centered around vinyl that I missed isn't this a completely irrelevant discussion for this particular forum?  When I can get surround out of a new 180 gr vinyl album let me know and we can add that to the debate.  Until then we are talking apples and oranges.  The personal attacks here are what bothers me.  Why the need to insult those who hear the differences and those who dont?  They are both right.  It completely depends on the source.  While I tend to agree that CDs can sound brittle and such but to suggest that they are somehow unable to capture the relatively few dynamics present in most recordings is a bit disingenuous IMHO.  The fact that it can carry the sound of a dog whistle suggests there's more going on.  Indeed when you look at the industry papers on creating high res and surround recordings they typically emphasize the fact that the mediums which carry this information have an incredible dynamic range and suggest that no compression or very little is used.  In fact they suggest a completely different mixing technique than those that are destined for CD.  Can one be certain that what they are hearing has more to do with the bits involved than the actual engineering, archival, and production of said material?  I don't think you can.  I don't think that any conclusive scientific evidence frankly exists for either position because you are always at a disadvantage of comparing 2 sources mastered completely differently.  Some recordings go from analog to DSD to PCM and back to DSD, some go from analog to PCM to DSD then back again to PCM.  This conversion might speak to some of what is being heard as well.  Alas, I am saddened and deeply disturbed that folks continue to use personal attacks for something that should be a gentlemanly debate.  Perhaps there are a lot of younger people on the forum who haven't learned to properly asses the impact that manners have on a given discussion.  I have found that the more open you are to others opinions and the less one resorts to attacking folks, one tends to garner more respect and finds more ears willing to listen to their position.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 12:38:38 AM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Steven you are so sad. I feel so sorry for you.

I note again how many of you made this 'personal' right away...your best
response when your beliefs are challenged, is to question my
hearing/gear/purchases/personality/enjoyment of good sound, as if that was
pertinent to the points I raised. Classic audiophile defense reaction.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 11:24:40 AM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> May i also suggest you listen to a HDCD encoded disc on a HDCD equipped
> player. The difference is noticeable, and like all music played in a
> higher res that 16/44.1, especially in the bass.

I've been doing that for years -- since HDCD first appeared. I first had
an X-DAC with HDCD decoding, later a Harman receiver, later an Oppo
player, now I've decoded all my HDCDs in software.

If you know what HDCD does and how it works, you'll know it's basically
impossible for it to have an effect on bass specifically.

HDCD is simply 1) high quality (Keith Johnson's design) ADC and 2) some
'tricks' to encode 20 bit audio at 16 bits. The most notable add on is an
optional 'Peak Extend' function. But again, as with 'high rez' the
question begged is: what sources that have been released on HDCD -- and I
have a bunch in the rock realm, typically sourced from old analog tapes --
ever needed more than 16 bits to fully capture their 'peak extension'?

In the end it seems more a clever (perhaps inadvertant) way to allow some
users to play dynamically 'compressed' (undecoded) version of a disc, and
others to play a 'wide range' version of the same disc. But anyone with
an AVR can do that today.

And too there are plenty of HDCDs where there is no peak extension whatever.
The waveform of the decoded and nondecoded versions are essentially
identical, except that the decoded version is up to 6db *lower* in
amplitude (like turning the volume knob down 6db) than the nondecoded
version.


> Let me tell you a story (copyright - Max Bygraves)
>
> A friend of mine runs a recording studio, and i was involved in tests he
> ran when he was testing his new Pro-Tools setup to determine whether the
> improvements of 24 bit recording and 48/96k sampling rate
>
> After many tests, it was decided that 24bit trounced 16 bit in every
> respect, but that there was actually hardly any difference between 48k and
> 96k sampling.
>

What 'tests' were these? Double blind, level-matched?


> This was done with normal instruments that would be used in what we would
> term a 'group'.
>
> BUT a later test, which i wasn't involved in, with a string quartet showed
> that 96k sampling was preferred over 48k. It would make sense in that the
> harmonic structure of classical stringed instruments is far richer than
> modern 'electric' instruments.

However 'rich' the instrument is in producing frequencies above a
fundamental, all of them that are within a given bandwidth are captured
by proper ADC at twice that bandwidth. So overtones (harmonics) up to 22
are captured by 44 kHz SR (redbook), 24 by 48kHzSR, 48 by 96SR. Which
can't matter unless one can actually *hear* beyond 24 kHz and up to 48kHz,
which humans can't.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 24, 2012, 2:55:27 PM1/24/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I could care less what anyone has to say, I simply go with what I know
> sounds best to me. I've also done a number of comparison's of the
> same music at different resolutions, mp3, cd, ac3 and dvd-audio. If
> the bitrate is kept high on mp3 it's sometimes difficult to pick it
> out between mp3 and cd, but I can determine between ac3 and dvd-audio
> every time.
> And if you're comparing mp3 or cd to dvd-audio it's a
> joke. And its not just me, when I have friends listen at my home or
> in my car they are blown away by dvd-audio and its higher resolution.


Curious to know, how do you carefully match levels in all these
comparisons (so that you're not interpreting a simple level difference as
something else), and how do you prevent the various
psychological/unconscious biases in play, from influencing the outcome?


Chances are that at least some of the differences you think you hear might
be imaginary, or not due to 'high rez' at all. (The measurable differences
aren't imaginary, but that doesn't automatically mean you are hearing
them.) The question is then, are you OK with living with that chance? If
so, relax and enjoy -- that's what I usually do, btw. Or do you care to
find out what the real state of affairs is for your perception of a
particular difference? That can be interesting, and certainly ear-opening,
but also time consuming.


realafrica

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 6:50:39 PM1/25/12
to SurroundSound
Dear Steven,
With the utmost respect mate, have you ever listened to good quality
24/96 music?
I don't recall, in all you have said so far, that you have done so.
Please listen to the exact same recording from a decent 24/96 or
better source and it's redbook version, as dithered and down-sampled
by Izotope_RX for example.
There are many examples, easily available of excellent vinyl rips done
as both 24/96 and 16/44 at the same time, on the same equipment, by
the same person. I think these ought to satisfy your 'scientific'
criteria for a good source for such a comparison.

As for the tired old chestnut of humans not hearing above 20kHz. You
know that is not a good argument for your cause, why trundle it out?
You must know that it has been scientifically proven that the
harmonics in a recording well above 22kHz have a definite AUDIBLE
effect upon the range we can hear?

When it comes down to it what matters is how we perceive the music we
are listening to. Whether it is anything to do with the mind playing
tricks on us or not, in a way is irrelevant. As is whether it is
scientifically proven or not. After all science is a work in progress
that is totally dependent on human senses to interpret/manipulate the
end data, where minds might be tricked too. If science can't tell us a
simple thing like if the cat in the box is dead or not, then it can't
actually tell us much of any relevance can it?

Just listen to the nice 24/96 music and compare it to the same 16/44
that's all I ask. Please, go on, try it.
No more waffle about what science and others have to say. They don't
matter, at the end of the day. It is only you and your music and how
you hear it that matters at all.

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 6:54:35 PM1/25/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
ABX feature in foobar2000? "Vorsprung durch Technik" as Del Boy said to the
German lady in labour....

P.

ChrisL

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 9:48:15 PM1/25/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Okay, I'll make my addition to this rather endless thread, since it seems to continue being energized. To paraphrase, virtually everyone commenting says "I experience a difference". One guy insists "no you don't", which to me seems a curious response for anyone to make.
 
Having been born into the classic nerd community I'm well-acquainted with people who cannot easily express themselves except through sharing an abundance of factoids. I might even admit "been there, done that". Along the way I have learned that such a discussion may seem like communication but without heart the words feel empty.
 
Pardon my imperfect segue, but what feels empty to me is lo-rez digitized music. First, know that I grew up with vinyl and tube amplification. Yes, the first time around - but don't call me vintage:\  Over the years I have dabbled in most every form of sound recording as both a musician and music lover. A few years ago I created an all-tube surround system with amps I either built or had refurbished, and used classic Klipsch speakers which received upgraded crossovers and horn diaphragms. This approach was time consuming and labor-intensive, but gave me much bang for the buck, so to speak. For personal listening I still enjoy two-channel stereo, with the source material being either vinyl or HR files played on/through an Oppo BDP-95 into tube amplification.
 
I am of the opinion that our bodies and human energy systems respond to input that is beyond the range of what science measures or limitations we erroneously assign to the classic 5 senses. For me, the experience of reproduced music includes what I hear and goes beyond. With the right recording and the right equipment configuration music takes on a life that immerses me audibly, energetically and viscerally. I feel it as much as I hear it, and I don't just mean thumping bass. I give much credit to the tubes for that experience, but that's just me and I'm not intending a debate about amplifier choices.
 
So, back to empty music. I am aware that some people make no distinction between the sound of a CD or mp3 files made from that CD. Perhaps everyone has an explanation, but I chalk it up to missed opportunities to discover the difference or disinterest. For some, 5,000 songs on an iPod is great. Fine by me, but I equate listening to mp3 files as slowly starving because I cannot digest what isn't there. Nothing fills me. Meanwhile, CD's have enough nourishment to keep me alive, but it's like something needs to be added for a little more substance. Salting bland food only makes it saltier, not better. Tubes help quite a lot, but one can't amplify what isn't there.
 
High-rez files simply contain more data. There's more there, there. They fill in gaps that some might say the ear can't detect, but I find that something in the body's system does recognize as more fullness. And, in most cases I find an audibly distinct difference as well. One example is the 5.1 surround DVD-A disc of Fresh Aire 8 by Mannheim Steamroller with the London Symphony. This disc is packaged with the CD version included, and is one I often use for demonstrating to my friends the difference between CD and DVD-A encoding. I play both formats in two-channel stereo, and even the most tin-eared can discern the difference in the clarity of the triangle, for example, other details of the orchestra, and the body the music takes on. Differences are often subtle, and not everyone picks them up, but when mp3 is the most familiar format anything else sounds fantastic, and differences are less meaningful. With time and experience the difference either matters to the listener or not. In my view, all the charts and graphs and quotable references reflect the instrumentation used to create them, but don't adequately reflect the fullness of the human experience.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 1:41:19 AM1/26/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
ChrisL - Thank you for expressing what I could not

--
32B.gif

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 7:59:18 PM1/25/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Yes. That would be an excellent way.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 1:07:59 AM1/26/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Okay, I'll make my addition to this rather endless thread, since it
> seems to continue being energized. To paraphrase, virtually everyone
> commenting says "I experience a difference". One guy insists "no you
> don't", which to me seems a curious response for anyone to make.

Wrong right off the bat.

"This guy" doesn't say 'you don't experience a difference'. Far from it.
I don't deny the experience. I question the accuracy of the
interpretation. This guy says 'what makes you so sure the difference is
real'? Because science tells us that humans often make such mistakes.

Since you got that so fundamentally wrong, not sure the rest of your post
is pertinent.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 7:58:23 PM1/25/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Dear Steven,
> With the utmost respect mate, have you ever listened to good quality
> 24/96 music?

Yes.

> I don't recall, in all you have said so far, that you have done so.
> Please listen to the exact same recording from a decent 24/96 or
> better source and it's redbook version, as dithered and down-sampled
> by Izotope_RX for example.

But you aren't asking me to to do it blind, and level-matched, and
determine which is which , say, 14 times out of 16??

(Which I *have* tried...have you?)


> There are many examples, easily available of excellent vinyl rips done
> as both 24/96 and 16/44 at the same time, on the same equipment, by
> the same person. I think these ought to satisfy your 'scientific'
> criteria for a good source for such a comparison.
>

*Vinyl* rips? If you want to really test the technology, you'd compare a
rip of a 'high rez' original recording (i.e., originally recorded at
96/24) to a 16/44 downconversion of that. Vinyl is already highly
compromised in both dynamic range and distortion-free bandwidth. Better to
at least use something sourced from analog master tapes, than *vinyl*.

> As for the tired old chestnut of humans not hearing above 20kHz. You
> know that is not a good argument for your cause, why trundle it out?
> You must know that it has been scientifically proven that the
> harmonics in a recording well above 22kHz have a definite AUDIBLE
> effect upon the range we can hear?


You must show me the evidence for that. (If you mean Oohashi's problematic
PET scans, that won't do, sorry)

> When it comes down to it what matters is how we perceive the music we
> are listening to.

Up to a point. When you make claims about cause and effect, you have
moved beyond that point.

Whether it is anything to do with the mind playing
> tricks on us or not, in a way is irrelevant. As is whether it is
> scientifically proven or not.

And yet you just tried to cite science to me up there. Why?

realafrica

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 12:27:23 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
I give up with Steven as a lost cause. I will not waste any more of my
time in conversation with him.
except to say this:

Dear Steven,
If you like, I will admit defeat to your superior scientific
intellect and bow out of this discussion, truly humbled by your
awesomeness.
Let's put it top bed, eh?

elshagon

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 2:50:23 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
Stevie: Of course I matched levels, doing any comparison without
matching levels is useless. Useless, just like continuing to respond
to you posts.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 3:53:23 PM1/26/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Stevie: Of course I matched levels, doing any comparison without
> matching levels is useless. Useless, just like continuing to respond
> to you posts.


It's great that you did some kind of level matching! So, how closely did
you match them, and by what method? Also, the other half of the package --
blind comparison -- is equally as important. You don't seem to have
addressed that at all.

After all, we wouldn't want your comparison to be *useless* now, would we?

realafrica

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 5:02:06 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
LOL

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 6:35:25 PM1/26/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Same here
--
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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4767 - Release Date: 01/26/12

Britre

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 8:07:36 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
I have one more thing...

I read this discussion to a friend of mine who was quite curious as to
just what is the big deal here. So I said lets do a listen off and
test some ideas about what really is the difference as far as digital
reproduction.

You all know me or enough about my taste, my friend is a Klipsch man
who has all high end tube and the little tweak me ups and states his
iPod through the stereo sounds "damn good". He is familiar with
redbook CD and MP3, but is not familiar with DVD-A, SACD, BDA or any
other high res audio offered in todays world. Vinyl of course sounds
warm and inviting to him being the Klipsch man he is.

We chose a song we both heard a million times in every format and
quality. Led Zeppelin, Stairway To Heaven. It's leangth and dynamic
range gave a good test of detail and transparency. We used my first
pressing, Atlantic New York red/green label USA. After 1975 most Zep
LPs were awful, compressed and lost detail. For a comparison if you
can find a copy of a first pressing Houses Of The Holy compare it to
the 180 gram reissue and you will find a big difference in the quality
of the tape and sound of the master.

We first auditioned straight vinyl on my system for a reference
listening closely to the flute, guitars, shimmer of cymbals and detail
of the recording. It is clear with all insturments audiable clearly at
different peaks and you actually get to a point where you think John
and Jimmy are in the room. We then took it to his system to reference
the sound we were going to judge with. His system has more horny
midrange (due to his Klipsch) but the sound was as clear and crisp as
my system. We then recorded the track to PC at 192/96, 48/92 and
44.1/24. We used my u-Record USB sound adapter straight off the
Turntable.

Listening via PC indeed proved the 192/96 was the closest to the
actual playing of the record. At 48/92 we lost some of the shimmer on
the cymbles and the Flute had harmonics that were not there before. At
44.1/24 a bit more was lost with Plant's vocals starting to peak
distort during the highly detailed center section.

We then burned the material to DVD-A at full resolution and CD-R down
sampling. Now we had a huge difference. Almost everything sounded
identical. The high Res DVD-A was ever so slightly more transparent
but not enough to have any WOW factor. The original vinyl was more
warm, transparent and clear, the copies were great, but not as perfect
as the original.

We then for giggles did a 320K MP3 on his iPod. It sounded almost
identical to the CDR loosing very little detail.

For the sake of our unscientific experiment it did proove one thing.
High Res music does sound better on a PC or Mac when played back at
it's original resolution through a PC soundcard. Why this is could be
debated I suppose. With the exception of this experiment I personally
do not listen to music through my PC to the Stereo setup as that is
very inconvinent and disturbing to have the lcd screen in my face. My
opinion however.

Which also explains why some of us including me hear no difference
because we listen to our music via DVD-a, and CD-R . Factory issued
DVD-A and CD seem to have the same effect for me. I transfered the
King Crimson DVD-V to DTS CD and the resolution and sound was not
dramatically different besides the surround being less than ideal.

I am not offering argument here, I am mearly offering the results of
our experiment in essay form. Steven may indeed be scientifically
correct with his facts and figures and published specs of everything
however others out there are also right in the fact whatever sounds
better to the individual is as high res as it needs to be. I do
disagree with Steven in the fact vinyl can't reproduce all frequencies
due to cutting head specs and media specs. I believe it is just the
oppisite that digital can not reproduce all frequencies and is
electronically set at the specified range of 20-20 no matter what
resolution or sampling rate you may use. The exception might be PC and
Mac Soundcards which are not controlled by audio and video equipment
manufactures. The PC may reproduce unlimited audio frequencies while
our current DVD and Blue Ray players chop at 20 and 20. Thoughts
Steven?
>   For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 8:54:21 PM1/26/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
192/96 ?
48/92 ?

44.1/24 - how much has this been used commercially? Is it a recent
'downloadable sale' novelty?

I just sold a Tascam DAT that was 24/48. And I saw a very scarce DAT on
EBay UK (Pioneer D-07?) that was 16/96.

P.

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 27 January 2012 01:08
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample,
and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4767 - Release Date: 01/26/12

Britre

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 9:42:45 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
ok,

How bout 192K/24 bit, 96k/24 bit, 44.1k/24 bit I should have specified
SW used as well but it was on his PC and I don't recall what it was.

Yea, can see how that crud made no sense to the read between the lines
eye LOL

On Jan 26, 7:54 pm, "Peter Cawthron" <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4767 - Release Date: 01/26/12- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Britre

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 10:23:47 PM1/26/12
to SurroundSound
One other point The vinyl used was a Robert Ludwig sterling first
pressing, I have several Zep pressings and none are as good as those
Sterling Ludwig masters. speaking of that, A while ago I posted a copy
of the famous Zep II Hot master on Demonoid and you would not believe
the insults about how the best sounding version was the reissues in
the early 2000's digitally mastered. I was so taken aback I pulled the
share. It does go to show that some people do prefer high rez bitrate
stufff and some prefer magical pure analog. Chill factor is essential
and it is very rare I personally get that from any digital. How bout
you Steven? Dave?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages