CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[mep]

I guess we need to define what the word "resolution" means. Bit depth does more than just provide the ultimate dynamic range theoretically possible. Bit depth also affects amplitude resolution (there's that "R" word again). How many times has Bruce stated on this forum that he finds bit depth more important than sampling frequency? But then, I'm sure all of the armchair digital cowboys know more than a mastering engineer when it comes to how insignificant bit depth is to the overall sound of digital.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I guess we need to define what the word "resolution" means. Bit depth does more than just provide the ultimate dynamic range theoretically possible. Bit depth also affects amplitude resolution (there's that "R" word again). How many times has Bruce stated on this forum that he finds bit depth more important than sampling frequency? But then, I'm sure all of the armchair digital cowboys know more than a mastering engineer when it comes to how insignificant bit depth is to the overall sound of digital.

It's not hard to find a definition of resolution. Find me a definition of "amplitude resolution." Digital cowboys...I think that's defined as anyone presenting facts that disprove analog devotees opinions of digital.

I like Bruce, but many of his opinions regarding digital audio are not supported by broadly accepted theory (in the scientific sense, not in the "I have this theory" sense), and the fact that he is a mastering engineer does nothing to change that. They are merely another audiophile's opinions. I'm a musician. That doesn't make my opinion of Stevie wonder more valid than yours.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Wow did I somehow miss the news that Pink Fish Media bought WBF???

 

[Bruce B]

I like Bruce, but many of his opinions regarding digital audio are not supported by broadly accepted theory (in the scientific sense, not in the "I have this theory" sense), and the fact that he is a mastering engineer does nothing to change that. They are merely another audiophile's opinions. Tim

Here Tim... .form your own opinion..

I put 2 files up on the server. If you can hear a difference, then bit depth DOES matter.

Which one is the 16-bit file?

ftp://pugetsoundstudios.com/
User: samples
PW: wbf2013

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here Tim... .form your own opinion..

I put 2 files up on the server. If you can hear a difference, then bit depth DOES matter.

Which one is the 16-bit file?

ftp://pugetsoundstudios.com/
User: samples
PW: wbf2013

I'm getting a no permission to view message.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

I'm getting a no permission to view message.

Tim

I recreated the account and it should work now.

 

[NorthStar]

A good example. That analog is superior to digital is also a good one. That bit depth = resolution and digital creates a ragged waveform with missing information would be another. I don't recall which of these you've said personally, mark, but they are common anti-digital errors. The list is long. The conversation is old. I see no point, really, in repeating it, though you were able to get past tube and tower fixations; I remember well when the suggestion that 2-ways and subs, powered by SS, could compete with your big floor standers would have brought your attack, so I consider you more open than some.

Tim

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?11927-New-NIN&p=217281&viewfull=1#post217281 (post #3)

 

[NorthStar]

Wow did I somehow miss the news that Pink Fish Media bought WBF???

Lol

 

[Groucho]

I put 2 files up on the server. If you can hear a difference, then bit depth DOES matter.

Which one is the 16-bit file?

Haven't listened to them yet (will do when I have some headphones with me) but of course there are issues of how the conversion is done. The "digital cowboys" tell us that if the dithering is done properly, and the full resolution is applied to the dynamic range of the music, somewhat counter-intuitively the *only* difference is an increase in tape-like hiss, and for 24 bit reduced to 16bit, applied to to a piece of music covering the full dynamic range, this should be so low as to be inaudible. In fact they say it has to be inaudible. If you have found something different, repeatable in a DBT on multiple hardware setups, then we may be about to make audio, and mathematical, history.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Haven't listened to them yet (will do when I have some headphones with me) but of course there are issues of how the conversion is done. The "digital cowboys" tell us that if the dithering is done properly, and the full resolution is applied to the dynamic range of the music, somewhat counter-intuitively the *only* difference is an increase in tape-like hiss, and for 24 bit reduced to 16bit, applied to to a piece of music covering the full dynamic range, this should be so low as to be inaudible. In fact they say it has to be inaudible. If you have found something different, repeatable in a DBT on multiple hardware setups, then we may be about to make audio, and mathematical, history.

"THEY" said it was perfect too.

Do you still buy that line also?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"THEY" said it was perfect too.

Do you still buy that line also?

You're mixing CD marketing up with mathematics. I still can't open the files...

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mep, did you by chance find a definition for "amplitude resolution?" Not trying to get you to do my homework, but I've searched with no luck. Can't seem to find the two words used together, much less defined as a term.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

"THEY" said it was perfect too.

Do you still buy that line also?

Similar was said about analog disc back then from Edison .. Do we hold it against analog recordings?

In Thomas Edison's laboratory, we saw a cylinder phonograph. The guide's talk included the fascinating statement that Edison ran "live vs. recorded" demonstrations, and that listeners found the playback indistinguishable from the live sound!

"Rules of the Game" by James Boyk

 

[Don Hills]

... I still can't open the files...

Works OK for me using a real FTP client and with 2 different browsers. I'll listen once I transfer them to a good quality player.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, I got out of bed, switched from the iPad to the MacBook. Now Safari is giving me a dialog box asking for my username and password to the server at pugetsound. Maybe it's Safari. Tell you what, I'm probably too biased toward not hearing a difference anyway. Bruce, why don't you send me a PM telling which file is which, so we've got that information in the hands of one member from each side of the debate, and re-post the files as a survey. Ask every participating member to run it at least 6 times and enter their results. That probably won't get us to a statistical sample, but it would be informative, nonetheless. It would be a lot closer to objective than just getting my opinion. I'm a non-believer.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Mep, did you by chance find a definition for "amplitude resolution?" Not trying to get you to do my homework, but I've searched with no luck. Can't seem to find the two words used together, much less defined as a term.

Tim

Methinks many are leaning on the mathematical heory rather than the practical consequences that follow. Work flow people, work flow. What are the limits of each on the production side?

THAT is not subject to debate.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Similar was said about analog disc back then from Edison .. Do we hold it against analog recordings?

That's not the point. Does anyone say analog is perfect? All analog people say is that warts and all, it's closer to the sound of real music.

The point is how gullible are you to believe that when your ears are bleeding, and the wallpaper is coming off the walls, that 16/44 is as good as it gets. That's the consensus here it seems.

 

[FrantzM]

That's not the point. Does anyone say analog is perfect? All analog people say is that warts and all, it's closer to the sound of real music.

The point is how gullible are you to believe that when your ears are bleeding, and the wallpaper is coming off the walls, that 16/44 is as good as it gets. That's the consensus here it seems.

If you truly believe that ... then not much else need to be said or debated with you. Talking about gullibility ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's not the point. Does anyone say analog is perfect? All analog people say is that warts and all, it's closer to the sound of real music.

The point is how gullible are you to believe that when your ears are bleeding, and the wallpaper is coming off the walls, that 16/44 is as good as it gets. That's the consensus here it seems.

My wallpaper is intact and my ears are enjoying the music. And what I have invested is, by WBF standards, midfi at best. If this is what digital sounds like to you, I'd recommend you take a serious look at your digital sources...or perhaps your synergy. This reminds me of a comment from a couple of days ago; someone said "pro audio" has a edgy, unnatural high end. And I know exactly what he's talking about because I've heard it. It's called crappy pro audio. Exaggerated treble trying to pass for "detail." It's not hard to find; it's also easy to avoid. You can do it by ear, by the numbers, or both.

Tim

 

[still-one]

Just that your question raises two questions - what should we expect from a review and what is a good room for a reviewer.

I would say that a good room for a reviewer is one that he is very familiar with the sound. It does not have to measure perfect (whatever that means).