How many bits are really meaningful?

[Thomas.Dennehy]

With good quality source, the playback difference between a regular CD and an SACD at 88.2 or 96k or a DVD-A at 96k or 192k is substantial. If you don't hear a difference (again with good quality source, mastered correctly) your playback gear has insufficient resolution, your ears just can't discern it, or haven't been 'taught' the differences.

All of the above may apply to me. But things can change. My hearing could improve with age . I can get better gear. I can find the time to take the listener training program offered by my employer (Harman).

So with all the possible futures, I want to get my hands on as many music bits as possible now. It's relatively simple calculus to prove numerically that a better digital approximation of an analog wave is achieved as you employ higher sampling rates and wider samples, independent of the quality of your experience, hearing or gear.

And since I believe that not all bits are of equal value, I favor wider samples over higher sampling if I can't have both.


TGD

[Phelonious Ponk]

^ That's a very nice post Frank! I can totally relate to it.

Your last line: "It's just Music ..." ; It just sounds sweet to my ears and soul.

________________________

Soooo, how many Bits?

Hell, Bruce - that sounds good on YouTube, at the office, through a Lenovo laptop, into a pair of Apple iPod earbuds. I only see two mics....?

Tim

[fas42]

Gee whiz, these moderators with finger problems -- maybe they need to go off to a training course ...

Thomas, this business of number of bits I'm finding more and more to be a furphy (that's Australian for a red herring!). I have no "proof", but everything so far is pointing to the quality of the replaying mechanism to be absolutely crucial to the qualities that everyone ascribes to hi-res: as mentioned elsewhere I've taken an MP3 file and resampled, translated it to a highest level of SACD quality, and, my goodness, what a dramatic improvement in quality!

Frank

[Ronm1]

I have no "proof", but everything so far is pointing to the quality of the replaying mechanism to be absolutely crucial to the qualities that everyone ascribes to hi-res: as mentioned elsewhere !

Frank

I agree, great h/w can only do so much with a mediocre source(media), vice/versa is the same boat. Now get both together and we are on to something. Heck, great mastered media(16,20,24 or analog) on h/w that can take advantage of it, is such a joy. Isn't that what we strive for!!! To me, when I find that match its so obvious no discussion is necessary.

[bblue]

Gee whiz, these moderators with finger problems -- maybe they need to go off to a training course ...

Thomas, this business of number of bits I'm finding more and more to be a furphy (that's Australian for a red herring!). I have no "proof", but everything so far is pointing to the quality of the replaying mechanism to be absolutely crucial to the qualities that everyone ascribes to hi-res: as mentioned elsewhere I've taken an MP3 file and resampled, translated it to a highest level of SACD quality, and, my goodness, what a dramatic improvement in quality!

Frank, you don't seem to be learning anything.

--Bill

[fas42]

Frank, you don't seem to be learning anything.

--Bill

Meaning ... ??

Again, my take is that how well the replay mechanism is implemented is almost everything: a "lousy" recording can sound reasonable on a brilliant playback mechanism; a brilliant recording on a lousy source media reader likewise. To me, one of those options is definitely preferable ...

Frank

[bblue]

Meaning ... ??

Again, my take is that how well the replay mechanism is implemented is almost everything: a "lousy" recording can sound reasonable on a brilliant playback mechanism; a brilliant recording on a lousy source media reader likewise. To me, one of those options is definitely preferable ...

I was referring to your repeated rant about upsampling MP3's and reporting how great they sound. You simply cannot recover the damage done to music once it has been encoded to MP3. You could minimize the damage by using a high bit rate encoding of 256k or 320k, but otherwise serious compromises are made. That you don't seem to notice the damage says a lot about how you are listening and your system's ability to resolve detail. That's fine for you, but don't be making claims about how all other systems should be able to do the same -- even better if they're great systems. T'ain't true.

A lousy recording will be lousy when played back on good equipment. A lousy recording can 'sound' better or more listenable, even enjoyable, when played on a system that is itself not very revealing, or heavily colored in some way.

The notion that a bad recording will suddenly sound great on good equipment is seriously flawed. Bad is bad, unless you doctor it or hide detail so it sounds more pleasing. Distortion is distortion, excessive eq is excessive eq, over-aggressive mastering is over-aggressive mastering. All of those will sound like what they are on a system that can resolve detail. They'll sound much better on consumer audio gear and boom-boxes -- which is primarily where they are targeted by the music industry.

In a way, having a high resolution system can definitely hinder the range of music you can play and enjoy. On the other hand, well recorded music will never sound better than in a high resolution system. I went through a multi-year stretch back in the 90's where I dumbed down my playback system to consumer grade gear, 256k VR MP3's as the source, etc. It was great being able to listen to music I couldn't stand when played on my reference system. But the tracks I knew were really well recorded and sounded great on the reference system, sounded really lacking. Not bad, necessarily, just nothing special.

And when you use lower grade gear as your own reference, it's certainly possible to make tweaks that make really badly recorded stuff sound quite pleasing. But that is accomplished by masking and/or limiting detail.

--Bill

[Steve Williams]

I was referring to your repeated rant about upsampling MP3's and reporting how great they sound. You simply cannot recover the damage done to music once it has been encoded to MP3. You could minimize the damage by using a high bit rate encoding of 256k or 320k, but otherwise serious compromises are made. That you don't seem to notice the damage says a lot about how you are listening and your system's ability to resolve detail. That's fine for you, but don't be making claims about how all other systems should be able to do the same -- even better if they're great systems. T'ain't true.

A lousy recording will be lousy when played back on good equipment. A lousy recording can 'sound' better or more listenable, even enjoyable, when played on a system that is itself not very revealing, or heavily colored in some way.

The notion that a bad recording will suddenly sound great on good equipment is seriously flawed. Bad is bad, unless you doctor it or hide detail so it sounds more pleasing. Distortion is distortion, excessive eq is excessive eq, over-aggressive mastering is over-aggressive mastering. All of those will sound like what they are on a system that can resolve detail. They'll sound much better on consumer audio gear and boom-boxes -- which is primarily where they are targeted by the music industry.

In a way, having a high resolution system can definitely hinder the range of music you can play and enjoy. On the other hand, well recorded music will never sound better than in a high resolution system. I went through a multi-year stretch back in the 90's where I dumbed down my playback system to consumer grade gear, 256k VR MP3's as the source, etc. It was great being able to listen to music I couldn't stand when played on my reference system. But the tracks I knew were really well recorded and sounded great on the reference system, sounded really lacking. Not bad, necessarily, just nothing special.

And when you use lower grade gear as your own reference, it's certainly possible to make tweaks that make really badly recorded stuff sound quite pleasing. But that is accomplished by masking and/or limiting detail.

--Bill

Bill

thanks for finally hitting the nail on the head and making Frank understand he can't make a purse from a sow's ear. IMO you hit the nail on the head and hopefully we can finally move on from all of this crap about making a bad CD sound good or how an MP3 can sound great with upsampling.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Bill

thanks for finally hitting the nail on the head and making Frank understand he can't make a purse from a sow's ear. IMO you hit the nail on the head and hopefully we can finally move on from all of this crap about making a bad CD sound good or how an MP3 can sound great with upsampling.

Steve, I've gotta admire your optimism: "Frank understand," "finally move on." Really? When Bill said "Frank, you don't seem to be learning anything." I thought he was just talking about Frank's habit of bringing exactly the same dellusion into every thread, no matter how irrelevant it might be. But I don't expect that to slow down, either.

Tim

[NorthStar]

Frank, please, find a new source, a new regain of life, a new origin, a new power (mojo).

I believe in you, I believe that you have other resources that are benificial and you can share.
Use your power of wisdom and words to unleash a brand new open world to all of us.

I know you can do it, and we'll provide you the very best hand (necessary bits) to get there ...

Best,
Bob