Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

Al M. · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
No further comments are needed. Have a good day.

So you can hear above 20 kHz? Interesting.

And don't tell me that even if you can't, frequencies above 20 kHz might still be important. This is convincingly debunked here, with an obviously valid analogy to human vision:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

And the article also points out that in fact reproduction of higher frequencies is problematic because of intermodulation distortion affecting the audible range.

esldude · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
No further comments are needed. Have a good day.

So I take it you don't believe Shannon Nyquist and further don't wish to bothered by examples that it actually works.

Al M. · Jan 30, 2014

esldude said:
So I take it you don't believe Shannon Nyquist and further don't wish to bothered by examples that it actually works.

I guess that some who have decided that CD cannot work optimally from what they hear in actual CD reproduction also have decided that therefore the theory of the medium must be wrong. Yet that is demonstrably not the case. This leaves only issues with practical technical implementation of the medium (which arguably are harder to solve than with so-called hi-res media), and even that is getting better and better, to the point that even committed analog fans are becoming convinced of SOTA CD reproduction.

I am repeating myself here, but Peter Breuninger, for example, states in his review at AV showrooms about the flagship MBL combo (the transport is CD-only):

"The MBL 1611F D/A Converter and the MBL 1621F Transport represent a state-of-the-art attack on the best sound that digital audio reproduction offers today. Together as a set they produce the most analog like sound this audio reviewer has yet to experience from a digital front end. Ordinary 44.1 kHz Redbook CDs become as smooth as SACDs with the air and life you would expect from vinyl. In fact, the MBL combination is as satisfying as one of the best analog systems in the world… the Onedof turntable, Triplaner, Ikeda, and Zuzma 4Point arms, Ikeda 9TT and Phase Tech P-1G cartridges into the outstanding Wyetech Ruby Phono Stage. That’s a $170,000 analog system!

The MBL 1611F D/A Converter and 1621F Transport… it’s analog on a silver disc!"

From:
http://www.avshowrooms.com/MBL_DAC_Transport.html

***

And I would not argue with this assessment until I would have listened to this kind of CD playback myself. Unless I am dogmatically wedded to my preconceived notions, of course.

microstrip · Jan 30, 2014

Just a comment - I dislike when people reduce a debate on dynamic range in CD to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, and need to use internet pages and videos to prove the false words they are abusively putting in other people mouths. I never referred to the audibility range or any psychoacoustic aspect in these recent posts.

As most people know it is not possible to debate against a 24 minute video. We had the pleasure of participating, agreeing and disagreeing on these themes in WBF before, with participation of many members. Experts wrote long posts and we commented them. But IMHO WBF is mainly a written forum, I am out of this debate now.

Al M. · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
Just a comment - I dislike when people reduce a debate on dynamic range in CD to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem,

I guess one has little to do with the other, and if I remember correctly, in the first few pages of this thread we have barely mentioned Nyquist.

mep · Jan 30, 2014

I think this thread has steered down a dirt road for the most part with relation to the original question the OP asked. The original question was "Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?" If we answer that question in terms of how much dynamic range CD can theoretically contain (96dB) and put it in the context of how much dynamic range is being recorded today, the answer has to be yes. As much as I love analog, I don't think anyone is going to claim that LPs or tape can capture 96dB of dynamic range.

I have said before that with few exceptions, most music being recorded today has precious little dynamic range. We aren't coming close to taxing what LPs and tape could record let alone 96dB of dynamic range. And since I have both tapes and LPs that I think have really good dynamic range (if not sometimes stunning), I think most of us would do back flips if the music we played routinely had a dynamic range of even 65dB.

If everyone is itching for yet another analog vs. digital debate where we examine the warts of both in microscopic detail, we can start another thread for that as I don't believe that was the intent of this thread. Until someone can show me that recording engineers are chomping at the proverbial bit to record music with more than 96dB of dynamic range and RBCD is holding them back, the answer to the OP's question has to be an unequivocal 'yes.'

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
Just a comment - I dislike when people reduce a debate on dynamic range in CD to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, and need to use internet pages and videos to prove the false words they are abusively putting in other people mouths. I never referred to the audibility range or any psychoacoustic aspect in these recent posts.

As most people know it is not possible to debate against a 24 minute video. We had the pleasure of participating, agreeing and disagreeing on these themes in WBF before, with participation of many members. Experts wrote long posts and we commented them. But IMHO WBF is mainly a written forum, I am out of this debate now.

I don't think the discussion of dynamic range was reduced to the fundamental theory upon which digital audio is based, I think the conversation drifted (and not far, really), as they often do. I'm just thankful that, except for a couple of wayward moments, it hasn't drifted into another analog v digital debate.

Tim

microstrip · Jan 30, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
I don't think the discussion of dynamic range was reduced to the fundamental theory upon which digital audio is based, I think the conversation drifted (and not far, really), as they often do. I'm just thankful that, except for a couple of wayward moments, it hasn't drifted into another analog v digital debate.

Tim

Tim,

The fundamental theory of digital audio is just sampling, quantization and psychoacoustics - nothing else. Then you must add errors due to instrumental implementation, a very tricky subject that needs a lot of analog and digital electronics, advanced maths and psychoacoustics. However as you can not carry some of the needed psychoacoustics (an experimental science) without implementations, sometimes the borders are not hermetic.

BTW, I do not consider music halls and our own systems as psychoacoustics labs.

thedudeabides · Jan 30, 2014

Mep,

I fully agree with you. Thank you for answering the question in it's simplest / concise form. Dirt road indeed to say the least. Or maybe even a "two track" road one finds up in the mountains where only the brave venture.

I frankly don't understand how many of the posts are applicable to the original question posed by the OP versus posts filled with technical minutia purportedly addressing the basic question. That also includes understanding what they all are trying to say

. But then, I'm a simple person who believes in listening to make a determination (in this case sufficient dynamic range) versus measurements or theories.

My initial question remains, that being "sufficient for what"?

GG

mep · Jan 30, 2014

thedudeabides said:
My initial question remains, that being "sufficient for what"?
GG

I took it as is it sufficient for capturing the dynamic range that is being recorded today for the music we listen to and purchase.

microstrip · Jan 30, 2014

mep said:
I took it as is it sufficient for capturing the dynamic range that is being recorded today for the music we listen to and purchase.

Mark,
How can you then justify your known preference for DSD?

esldude · Jan 30, 2014

mep said:
I took it as is it sufficient for capturing the dynamic range that is being recorded today for the music we listen to and purchase.

Me too. My opinion is 48/24 is not much of a jump and why not go there at least. But the OP wondered if redbook had sufficient dynamic range. I provided some data from some award winning hi-rez recordings. They did, just barely, very rarely exceed the 96 db range of CD. One can either say 24 bit to be sure, or 16 bit is so close it likely doesn't matter or some other in between idea based upon your playback needs in your home.

So the answer is an unambiguous maybe. Yes there are recordings that exceed 96 db. Then again, such are few and far in between and exceed 96 db only quite rarely. Does that mean we answered the question and need no more responses?

mep · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
Mark,
How can you then justify your known preference for DSD?

Francisco-This thread wasn't about which digital medium do you think sounds the best. I stripped it down to the fundamental question the OP asked. I didn't say I like the sound of RBCD more when compared to other digital formats. I'm on the record as not being a fan of PCM digital and preferring the sound of DSD because to me it sounds the closest to the sound of analog. If the question is stated as "is 96dB of dynamic range enough to capture the sound of music being recorded today," I say yes. And I say "yes" based on the fact that the majority of music being recorded today is coming nowhere near close to using that much dynamic range.

Now, we could change that question around and ask if music was recorded with the maximum amount of dynamic range possible, would 96dB be sufficient to capture it? That would be another topic for another thread. The reality is we aren't taxing the capabilities that existed with 1950s professional tape decks for much of the music that is being recorded today IMO.

JackD201 · Jan 30, 2014

Thanks Mark. I've been going on about Xmax and Xmin and you finally nailed it in simple understandable terms.

mep · Jan 30, 2014

esldude said:
Me too. My opinion is 48/24 is not much of a jump and why not go there at least. But the OP wondered if redbook had sufficient dynamic range. I provided some data from some award winning hi-rez recordings. They did, just barely, very rarely exceed the 96 db range of CD. One can either say 24 bit to be sure, or 16 bit is so close it likely doesn't matter or some other in between idea based upon your playback needs in your home.

So the answer is an unambiguous maybe. Yes there are recordings that exceed 96 db. Then again, such are few and far in between and exceed 96 db only quite rarely. Does that mean we answered the question and need no more responses?

I think we answered the original question, but that doesn't mean we can't have another 1000 opinions on the subject. Again, this thread wasn't intended to ask which digital format sounds the best. When we get to the point that the average (or even better the majority) of new albums released exceeds 96dB of dynamic range, we can say we need more than RBCD in order to capture that dynamic range. If we want to start yet another thread to debate which PCM format sounds the best and why it's better to have more than 16 bits, we can do that too. I don't mean to infer to anyone that I like the sound of RBCD and I think 16 bits is all we need to capture everything that is there to be heard at the microphones. I'm strictly referring to the OP's question about dynamic range.

elcorso · Jan 30, 2014

esldude said:
Me too. My opinion is 48/24 is not much of a jump and why not go there at least. But the OP wondered if redbook had sufficient dynamic range. I provided some data from some award winning hi-rez recordings. They did, just barely, very rarely exceed the 96 db range of CD. One can either say 24 bit to be sure, or 16 bit is so close it likely doesn't matter or some other in between idea based upon your playback needs in your home.

So the answer is an unambiguous maybe. Yes there are recordings that exceed 96 db. Then again, such are few and far in between and exceed 96 db only quite rarely. Does that mean we answered the question and need no more responses?

It depends on your taste and and what you expect from your music and audio system. Why to have a compromised music playback if you can have a full one? It's like the common popular joke: "Why to have the full cow if you only want a burger?" In this case is the contrary I want the full cow, even from 24/44.1 at least.

Then, I believe if you don't have enough DB's room the last DBs could be compromised (stressed, distorted).

Just as a note, when Redbook began there were a lot of other limitations, like the CD room size for music, because the laser heads weren't capable to read a thinner groove allowing more music content. The advertising said, by that time, that all Beethoven symphonies would fit on one CD, and all the BS. Then came DVD & Blu Ray where the available room for high resolution is enough.

Roch

microstrip · Jan 30, 2014

JackD201 said:
Thanks Mark. I've been going on about Xmax and Xmin and you finally nailed it in simple understandable terms.

Jack,

But excessively simple IMHO. There is more than Xmax and Xmin .When you establish the dynamic range of a concert people talk of the ratio between the maximum level and the noise level of the room . But the noise the room is useful information and part of the recording and must be encoded - it "needs some bits" - I do not know how many. The classical definition of dynamics compares the maximum level of undistorted signal with noise from electronics - that has a random behavior and does not represent any useful information. IMHO we can not go from one to the other just directly. It is why some people say that at less 18 or 20 bits are needed for subjective quality listening at typical sound levels, adding two extra bits for implementation losses, making it 20 or 22.

The preference for an higher number of bits, or in the case of Mark , DSD with its higher dynamic range is a clear subjective indication that the low levels are not clearly reproduced in 44.1/16. Our brain prefers the representation that has less errors.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 30, 2014

microstrip said:
Jack,

But excessively simple IMHO. There is more than Xmax and Xmin .When you establish the dynamic range of a concert people talk of the ratio between the maximum level and the noise level of the room . But the noise the room is useful information and part of the recording and must be encoded - it "needs some bits" - I do not know how many. The classical definition of dynamics compares the maximum level of undistorted signal with noise from electronics - that has a random behavior and does not represent any useful information. IMHO we can not go from one to the other just directly. It is why some people say that at less 18 or 20 bits are needed for subjective quality listening at typical sound levels, adding two extra bits for implementation losses, making it 20 or 22.

The preference for an higher number of bits, or in the case of Mark , DSD with its higher dynamic range is a clear subjective indication that the low levels are not clearly reproduced in 44.1/16. Our brain prefers the representation that has less errors.

Of course. When people talk about the noise level of the room in the context of discussing the dynamic range of recordings, they're talking about the listening room. Or I would at least give them that benefit of the doubt before assuming them dumb enough to believe the noise floor of the space being recorded was not a part of the recorded information.

Tim

microstrip · Jan 30, 2014

Unfortunately I am not a AES member. Perhaps there is a E-libary subscriber between us that can read it an give us an opinion.

AES E-Library
Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the minimum discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982 Import into BibTeX
Publication Date:August 1, 1982

Click to purchase paper or login as an AES member. If your company or school subscribes to the E-Library then switch to the institutional version. If you are not an AES member and would like to subscribe to the E-Library then Join the AES!

This paper costs $20 for non-members, $5 for AES members and is free for E-Library subscribers.

rbbert · Jan 30, 2014

Didn't amir use some of the data from that paper in his Widescreen Review article (referenced early in this thread)?

Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

VIP/Donor

New Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

New Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads