Sorry, Bruce, I'm sure you said why in numerous posts, but for the sake of the thread here; in what way does 16/44.1 not do the job: what's missing in the copy in other words?
Frank
Hi-rez analog?
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
Frank
The quiet parts. The reverb tails... the ambience cues. All low level information. On a good, quiet, quality machine, with RMGI SM900 tape, the analog tape noise floor is very low. And because of this, good tape/machines have a wide dynamic range because they don't clip like digital. 16/44.1 can not capture that!
In my experience that's to do with the quality of playbook. Agreed, it's harder typically to get CD to yield up that information but it's certainly there, including analog tape noise. The best tape spec's I've read are about 75dB S/N, RB does 96, you've got 20dB to play with ...
Frank
So you're telling me that if I record a tape at say... 24/176.4 and then downsample it to 16/44.1, or even record tape at 16/44.1, you won't be able to tell the difference? Don't think so...
What I'm asking the masses is... at what point does digital become indistinguishable from tape?
Last edited:
It would start to be indistinguishable if you could record using digital a virgin tape, one that's never been recorded on or erased, and wind up the volume and not be able to pick the 2 noise signals apart. And you don't believe RB could do that?
Frank
Fascinating...
Isn't that what a good mastering engineer creates/enhances, if necessary
Seriously, I hadn't realized that
Isn't that what a good mastering engineer creates/enhances, if necessary
Seriously, I hadn't realized that
DSD is approaching...
asymptotically. It can, indeed, be very close However, the upside is greater availability/less competition for master tapes
I know which camp I'll be in -- of course, the chain must be entirely ANALOG
asymptotically. It can, indeed, be very close
However, the upside is greater availability/less competition for master tapes I know which camp I'll be in -- of course, the chain must be entirely ANALOG
I do not know, but one think I am sure - the Tapeproject tapes played in my Studer A80 with the standard electronics are miles ahead of the equivalent CDs played in top CD players.
I believe the sincerity of the question and will provide my answer based on personal experiences, hardly scientific. I did own an analog gear of excellent quality (and pedigree
). I did find myself listening more to the Burmester Transport?DAC combo much more than LP. It could have been a matter of convenience (no cleaning, fast access, etc) yet it was clear that CD was good enough for me to listen almost exclusively. I had however, then the impression that LP was superior in general... No serious comparison made, just a general feeling that LP was "better"... From that point I extrapolated that R2R was even better. I had then an R2R and although no access to first (low?) generation copies of Master Tapes, I could feel it superior to CD. I repeat that I never conducted a serious comparison.. Blind or otherwise. The few old tapes i could find (some of London Phase4 Stereo, 7.5 ips and some RCA, Decca and others) sounded very, very good but I didn't have the equivalent LPs or CDs to compare them to and frankly did not care ...Yet the general feeling and impression was that R2R was superior to both LP and CD .. then came HRx ...This long winded introduction is to place myself in the debate. I believe based on what I have heard from tape and from the better digital. That The better digital surpass anything analog has to offer. Preferences are another thing I have read here account of people preferring the sound from a tape to the direct feed... I mean how can one interpret this? Any rationality would say that a copy can only be equal to the original, it cannot be better. One can prefer a copy to an original, on that I have no problem. Stating the superiority of a copy to the original is absurd. Which brings me to your question..At last.
I would think that 24/92 is as transparent as one is likely to get. The technology is available to push the rate even higher and I am not sure there is any sonic difference between 24/92 and higher but I am willing to remain open ... I don't see what the improvement would be but I remain open. DSD is to me an anomaly and I am certain the reason it was pushed by Sony was the copy protection scheme it allowed them to establish, else I fail to see its merits so ... PCM high-Rez is to me as transparent one can get.
I have never made, ANY comparison, knowledge-removed or otherwise between Master Tape and the equivalent CD or Hi-Rez. I remain open that they could sound different. I however read Fremer account on his comparison between his table and the recording from his table (Rockport) on a digital gear. I remember his conclusions were that blind he would not be able to distinguish between his TT and the digital recording from his TT , the Rockport. I am not sure the recoding was Hi-Rez. Coming from such a staunch analog audiophile, I am forced to think that they were indistinguishable... So 24/92 is where I think there is no audible difference .. it could be even lower ...
sorry for the long post ...
Frantz
are you able to distinguish with high level of certainty the differences in sound heard between files heard at 24/192 (I assume that is what you meant) and files at higher rates such as 24/384 etc or can you tell the difference between high rez PCM and DSD.
I ask this only because at last week's Cali Audio Show it was quite revealing to me that most people who listened could not tell the files apart with any degree of regularity
are you able to distinguish with high level of certainty the differences in sound heard between files heard at 24/192 (I assume that is what you meant) and files at higher rates such as 24/384 etc or can you tell the difference between high rez PCM and DSD.
I ask this only because at last week's Cali Audio Show it was quite revealing to me that most people who listened could not tell the files apart with any degree of regularity
Steve
I can hear some differences between 24/92 and Redbook at least I think I do. Nothing major but there seem to be some differences. Attacks for once and general decay are another where Ihear more in some 24/96 releases. My current DAc don't do 192 KHz. it upsamples everything to 110 Khz and odd choice but results are very good. I am in the process of acquiring another DAC (used Weiss) and have moved to the Juli@ Sound Card.. I will conduct some tests.
The main problem is that of mastering. I would like to conduct tests in which the mastering is the same but rates are different. IOW same (analog or Hi-Rez no upsampling) Master , different rates... In the not too distant future I plan to acquire a DSD-capable DAC, I think you know which one I am thinking about. Based on what I am hearing now on Hi-rez and Redbook it seems mastering has a lot to do with the differences ... I am not firm on this simply an impression ...
I can hear some differences between 24/92 and Redbook at least I think I do. Nothing major but there seem to be some differences. Attacks for once and general decay are another where Ihear more in some 24/96 releases. My current DAc don't do 192 KHz. it upsamples everything to 110 Khz and odd choice but results are very good. I am in the process of acquiring another DAC (used Weiss) and have moved to the Juli@ Sound Card.. I will conduct some tests.
The main problem is that of mastering. I would like to conduct tests in which the mastering is the same but rates are different. IOW same (analog or Hi-Rez no upsampling) Master , different rates... In the not too distant future I plan to acquire a DSD-capable DAC, I think you know which one I am thinking about
. Based on what I am hearing now on Hi-rez and Redbook it seems mastering has a lot to do with the differences ... I am not firm on this simply an impression ...
Frantz, Interesting that you picked 24/96 as the sampling rate. When I did the analog vs digital-loop comparison, I settled on 24/96 for the comparison even though my DAC could play 24/192 and the Burmester phonostage could output 24/192. I thought that 24/96 sounded marginally better. I'm not sure I could pick out the difference blind, but it was an impression I had.
A possible reason I would suggest for that difference is that the sampling circuitry is working "harder" at 192, everything in the digital side is running at double the rate, and so any interference passing through to the analogue side is just that bit more severe ...
Frank
Edit this sentence to read: "I can hear some differences between _____ and _____ at least I think I do." Now fill in the blanks with a thousand things between sufficient amplifier headroom and speakers, substitute this sentence for the dramatic descriptions of the Audiophile community and begin dealing with the differences that are a bit more obvious and we'll be well on our way to accomplishing better sound, regardless of the recording resolution.
Tim
Yes. Based on this "reasoning" would the sampling circuitry be working "harder" at 96, than at 44.1? And wouldn't, therefore, Redbook be higher-rez than hi-rez? Or, rather, wouldn't it sound better?
Tim
Yes, a possibility. I noted on Audio Asylum at least one member commenting that they find something subtlely disturbing in listening to hi-rez, nothing obviously audible but ultimately the sound quality wasn't satisfying for them. I haven't listened to hi-rez myself, so can't comment personally ...
Frank
Hi-rez analog will not be simple to debate. I have owned several reel-to- reel decks, and although the classical specifications (FR, THD, noise, wow and flutter ) can be very similar between the consumer and the professional machines, the gap in sound is very wide. The sonic signature of the mechanics is very strong. I am only referring to playback of high quality tapes, as I have no experience of recording. But going from a Revox B77 to a Studer A80 with the same external tape amplifier was a big difference.
I have experimented recording my vinyl on to my Korg MR2000S in various formats from red book, 24/96 then 24/192 and finally single DSD and 2xDSD.
The 2xDSD captured all the spatial cues, the space/air in between the musicians, size of instruments, and timbre the best out of them all.
I do not claim fame to golden ears, but in a blind or known comparison I just could not make out the difference between the source and copy.
Clearly the above virtues definitely diminish when we go down towards lower formats. You get more darker passages between the musicians where the definition of space and air in between them starts to go missing. Hence you get this 'sudden leap of sound' from a musician playing on red book which could be misconstrued as dynamics.
To me 2xDSD would be the ideal resolution at this present moment. If higher than these resolutions do come out in the future , e.g. 4xDSD or 8xDSD that could be another story.
I have heard Blue Coast's Cookie Marenco's DSD recordings (uncompressed) played back through the modded Korg and at just 1xDSD they are simply stunning. best source I have heard.
I doubt ever if red book level PCM would ever come close and for sure vinyl would not be able to capture those signals without compression.
So Bruce, my answer to your question would be 2xDSD as the format of choice for hi-rez.
Cheers,
Neville
The 2xDSD captured all the spatial cues, the space/air in between the musicians, size of instruments, and timbre the best out of them all.
I do not claim fame to golden ears, but in a blind or known comparison I just could not make out the difference between the source and copy.
Clearly the above virtues definitely diminish when we go down towards lower formats. You get more darker passages between the musicians where the definition of space and air in between them starts to go missing. Hence you get this 'sudden leap of sound' from a musician playing on red book which could be misconstrued as dynamics.
To me 2xDSD would be the ideal resolution at this present moment. If higher than these resolutions do come out in the future , e.g. 4xDSD or 8xDSD that could be another story.
I have heard Blue Coast's Cookie Marenco's DSD recordings (uncompressed) played back through the modded Korg and at just 1xDSD they are simply stunning. best source I have heard.
I doubt ever if red book level PCM would ever come close and for sure vinyl would not be able to capture those signals without compression.
So Bruce, my answer to your question would be 2xDSD as the format of choice for hi-rez.
Cheers,
Neville
I thought SACD used DSD? Isn't DSD just a delta-sigma (noise-shaped) bitstream (no decimator, one-bit stream straight to analog LPF)?
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- thedudeabides
- Notdead
- Argonaut
- hopkins
- Rob181
- dminches
- the sound of Tao
- WildPhydeaux
- cdka
- Young Skywalker
- Mike Lavigne
- PatriceP57
- worldtime
- orrman
- trekpilot
- Long Live Analog
- Don Reid
- LarryK
- Geoffkait
- dcathro
- Robert Young
- Romalpa
- Ron Resnick
- AudioAbe
- Emilzebira
- keithc
- mainelotus
- hogen
- DennisH
- leyenda
- Downtheline
- wbass
- iaxel
- MarkusBarkus
- Holli82
- dan31
- GSOphile
- KwUke
- still-one
- vili
- scottrogers
- treitz3
- jadedavid
- Dane33
- Mamon
- hifirabbit
- Scott W
- Pichler
- five
- audiom3
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |