CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[MylesBAstor]

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

I don't even understand your comment. Are you questioning what I heard? Then you have no leg to stand on. So you're saying early generation digital is fine?

What most hear seem to think analog is:

 

[MylesBAstor]

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

Hey Tim can you tell the difference between an Edison cylinder and CDs on your set? Or had your hearing checked lately?

As far as digital sources, you can't even begin compare what you listen to even my 15 year old Altis DAC and transport.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hey Tim can you tell the difference between an Edison cylinder and CDs on your set? Or had your hearing checked lately?

As far as digital sources, you can't even begin compare what you listen to even my 15 year old Altis DAC and transport.

Just calling attention to the uber silliness of your overstatement Myles:

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.

I haven't a clue what your digital front end is and don't care, But if it is shredding your wallpaper and damaging your ears, it must be pretty bad. And that's not my evaluation, it's your own.

Tim

 

[DonH50]

Wow, another thread degenerating into name-calling and various denigrating of each other and their systems...

If I could drag back sort-of on-topic for a second: @ Bruce -- How did you create the two files, i.e. how did you reduce the bit depth? Or were they recorded simultaneously? Same ADC, DAW SW, etc.? Apologies if you already said and I missed it, too much chaff. I am looking forward to listening to them this weekend when I have some time. Certainly don't plan to post my impressions here, however.

 

[Bruce B]

This stuff is always interesting. Tell us about your signal path. Source to end storage, and, did anything travel a different path along the way. Did you do the same test with sinewaves or triangular waves or square waves. I agree that bit depth is important, but the nature of the test in all its aspects should be disclosed.
.

Studer A80RC MkII -> Horus A/D converter at 24/44.1

Studer A80RC MkII -> Horus A/D converter at 16/44.1 then upsampled to 24/44.1 using Pyramix converter. Nothing fancy.

I cut the files to exactly the same length. I did not record the music so I wouldn't get slapped by the label, but what I did capture is low ambient room noise, which I feel brings out the best of what 24-bit can do.

 

[DonH50]

Would it be possible to post the non-upsampled 16-bit version?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Wow, another thread degenerating into name-calling and various denigrating of each other and their systems...

If I could drag back sort-of on-topic for a second: @ Bruce -- How did you create the two files, i.e. how did you reduce the bit depth? Or were they recorded simultaneously? Same ADC, DAW SW, etc.? Apologies if you already said and I missed it, too much chaff. I am looking forward to listening to them this weekend when I have some time. Certainly don't plan to post my impressions here, however.

I'm not really denegrating Myles' system, Don, I don't know a thing about it. I am questioning a prevelant POV around here, though. If digital sounds as terrible as some folks claim, how can they stand to listen to it? Why on earth did they invest thousands of dollars in it?

I just find it amusing.

P

 

[Bruce B]

Would it be possible to post the non-upsampled 16-bit version?

yes, i can do that, but then expectation bias would overcome you!

 

[DonH50]

Actually I did not have you or anyone specific in mind, though your back-and-forth with Myles in the last few posts is... interesting. So many threads/topics seem to take on religious significance to the posters. More and more I think my time is better spent elsewhere. Like practicing for the next concert; discovering how much my lack of sight-transposing skills matters on this one, and the conductor is a string player who has no clue why I blew a part that jumps from E to Eb to D to C back to E... I think the classical typesetters are determined to maintain the aura of mystic about transposing instruments and keep the music schools going by ensuring trumpets and horns always have a bazillion keys to deal with. /end rant/

On-topic: I have always heard folk describe "amplitude resolution" in digital systems as the small amplitude variations riding on larger signals, and subsequently noting how tiny little squiggles in an analog system are "smooth" whilst in a digital system are "jagged". Empirical or theoretical considerations about the level of resolution as related to bit depth, lsb size, dynamic range, SINAD/SNR/THD/IMD and various other more technical details does not enter into their evaluation; digital is discrete, jagged, bad; analog is smooth = good. Discussions usually end up describing the noise floor and how it is possible to pull information from below the noise floor in analog but somehow not in digital. Describing the wealth of theory devoted to that very subject (analog or digital) is a topic beyond this thread...

 

[DonH50]

yes, i can do that, but then expectation bias would overcome you!

Oh. I have not grabbed the files. I envisioned them having names that were meaningless w.r.t. bit depth? But I suppose most players show the resolution? I have not noticed (I don't pay attention, have not noticed what my Oppo displays, and without my glasses can't see the bloody display from my listening position anyway!)

 

[NorthStar]

The newest and latest mode (vogue) in our audiophile community: Digital Hi-Res Audio (higher Bit Depth and extended Frequency Response) Music servers and all that digital Internet (Mac & PC) pea soup ... => Hi-Res Audio Music files (DIGITAL, and not Analog).

Plus! The analog; turntables with USB ports so that you can digitally transfer all your analog "master" albums, and even upsample them digitally at higher audio resolution for a better overal sound quality, and easy access, and practicality, and even by adding digitally Dolby Pro Logic II Music audio mode for a renewed surround envelopment from your original albums now digitally transferred into hi-res audio music files in your PC or Mac.

So, what would that be: 24 or 32 bits? ...And 96, or 192, or 384, or 88, or 176, or 352 kHz? ...Or DSD?
And one better: Headless. ...and Cartridge-less.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Northstar has gotten into the Maui Waui again...

Tim

 

[mep]

Here is what I find interesting about this thread: This is a digital thread and not a digital vs. analog thread. This is a thread where digital people turned on each other with one side proclaiming that anything above 16/44.1 is a wasted effort and hi-rez audio is a joke, another side proclaiming that anything less than 24/88.2 with a recorded dynamic range of 130dB is not hi-rez audio, another side proclaiming that MP3 is as good as 16/44.1, and yet another side saying that everyone should love the digital they have and quit wanting better sound quality and please buy more music (and I might have mixed part of another digital thread in with this one).

Meanwhile back at the ranch, some analog devotees have jumped in the fray on the side of wanting better digital and believing in the hi-rez formats. I for one proclaimed that I think DSD is at the top of the digital heap. Then you have Dallasinjustice chiming in that reviewers are a bunch of broke guys with terrible rooms and are basically a waste of oxygen. So, it's kind of funny and kind of sad to see the digital side of WBF turning on each other. It's been quite educational to see that the digital crowd is just as quick to pull knives and slash each other as they are to come after those who dare believe in the sound quality of analog. Man, the digital side of the street is a tough neighborhood.

 

[edorr]

Here is what I find interesting about this thread: This is a digital thread and not a digital vs. analog thread. This is a thread where digital people turned on each other with one side proclaiming that anything above 16/44.1 is a wasted effort and hi-rez audio is a joke, another side proclaiming that anything less than 24/88.2 with a recorded dynamic range of 130dB is not hi-rez audio, another side proclaiming that MP3 is as good as 16/44.1, and yet another side saying that everyone should love the digital they have and quit wanting better sound quality and please buy more music (and I might have mixed part of another digital thread in with this one).

Meanwhile back at the ranch, some analog devotees have jumped in the fray on the side of wanting better digital and believing in the hi-rez formats. I for one proclaimed that I think DSD is at the top of the digital heap. Then you have Dallasinjustice chiming in that reviewers are a bunch of broke guys with terrible rooms and are basically a waste of oxygen. So, it's kind of funny and kind of sad to see the digital side of WBF turning on each other. It's been quite educational to see that the digital crowd is just as quick to pull knives and slash each other as they are to come after those who dare believe in the sound quality of analog. Man, the digital side of the street is a tough neighborhood.

I might add that in the scheme of things none of this is of any significant importance, right up there with the trials and tribulations of the Kardashians in terms of relevance for people with real problems in life.

 

[mep]

I might add that in the scheme of things none of this is of any significant importance, right up there with the trials and tribulations of the Kardashians in terms of relevance for people with real problems in life.

Audio has no relevance for many people who don't have "real" problems in life, never mind those who do.

 

[edorr]

Audio has no relevance for many people who don't have "real" problems in life, never mind those who do.

We're an elite group of folks with no real problems in life, generous funds available for discretionary spend, too much time on our hands, a PC and internet connectivity. More exclusive than the infamous "1%". We are truly blessed.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

We're an elite group of folks with no real problems in life, generous funds available for discretionary spend, too much time on our hands, a PC and internet connectivity. More exclusive than the infamous "1%". We are truly blessed.

Mostly, yes...though not in my case and a few others. And that shouldn't really matter as I (and the others I'm sure) still have just as much of an interest in audio. I'm an analog lover primarily, but I'm interested in digital and I'm in this thread as I want to learn. I don't have the capability to playback DSD, but I can certainly take advantage of well-recorded digital in other resolutions or bit-rates.

I asked the question about 16/44.1 and upward from there to ask at which point it becomes hi-rez. Bruce came back to say for him it's 24/88.2 at minimally. Then we got into the part that really confuses me, and for my situation brings nothing to the discussion that I should be concerned about. "Amplitude resolution"? WTF? For those that are interested in these technical aspects, perhaps they should start a thread apart from this as for my money it adds nothing meaningful to the discussion at hand, which is a simply "CD Quality is not Hi-Res Audio". BTW...I still don't know what is.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here is what I find interesting about this thread: This is a digital thread and not a digital vs. analog thread. This is a thread where digital people turned on each other with one side proclaiming that anything above 16/44.1 is a wasted effort and hi-rez audio is a joke, another side proclaiming that anything less than 24/88.2 with a recorded dynamic range of 130dB is not hi-rez audio, another side proclaiming that MP3 is as good as 16/44.1, and yet another side saying that everyone should love the digital they have and quit wanting better sound quality and please buy more music (and I might have mixed part of another digital thread in with this one).

Meanwhile back at the ranch, some analog devotees have jumped in the fray on the side of wanting better digital and believing in the hi-rez formats. I for one proclaimed that I think DSD is at the top of the digital heap. Then you have Dallasinjustice chiming in that reviewers are a bunch of broke guys with terrible rooms and are basically a waste of oxygen. So, it's kind of funny and kind of sad to see the digital side of WBF turning on each other. It's been quite educational to see that the digital crowd is just as quick to pull knives and slash each other as they are to come after those who dare believe in the sound quality of analog. Man, the digital side of the street is a tough neighborhood.

Just to be clear, mep, it's not a thread in which digital people turned on each other, it is a thread that was conceived as a format debate. Read the title. And so a debate it is.

ON EDIT: I'm learning to go back and check when you make these broad statements about the "igital crowd," or broad statements in general. In this case, this thread doesn't resemble your characterization of it and the digital crowd much at all, Mark. It kind of wandered around for its first half, with a couple of particularly nasty sidebars about audio writers and audio pros; and those nasty sidebard included plenty of nasty participation by the "analog crowd" FWIW. It finally actually settled into a discussion of digital formats around page 7, and that part of the discussion, between members of the "digital crowd" are, I think most objective readers will find, the most civil in the thread. The exception being when Myles made a comment about digital tearing the paper off of his walls and making his ears bleed. My response was that if that's the case, he should probably examine his digital front end and system. He took that as me saying his equipment was inferior, and for that, I apologize. I meant it as simply as it can be taken: If it sounds that bad, something is wrong. I stand by that. I have a digital system that probably isn't worth the price of Myles' cables and I don't have those problems.

Your vision of digital people turning on each other? It's not here, mep. You may want it to be, but the digital people are managing to discuss formats quite nicely in this thread, and working on a test/demonstration together.

Tim

 

[mep]

Just to be clear, mep, it's not a thread in which digital people turned on each other, it is a thread that was conceived as a format debate. Read the title. And so a debate it is.

P

Really? What thread have you been reading? It can't be this one. The thread you are referring to must be posted on digitalutopia.com.

 

[mep]

Mostly, yes...though not in my case and a few others. And that shouldn't really matter as I (and the others I'm sure) still have just as much of an interest in audio. I'm an analog lover primarily, but I'm interested in digital and I'm in this thread as I want to learn. I don't have the capability to playback DSD, but I can certainly take advantage of well-recorded digital in other resolutions or bit-rates.

I asked the question about 16/44.1 and upward from there to ask at which point it becomes hi-rez. Bruce came back to say for him it's 24/88.2 at minimally. Then we got into the part that really confuses me, and for my situation brings nothing to the discussion that I should be concerned about. "Amplitude resolution"? WTF? For those that are interested in these technical aspects, perhaps they should start a thread apart from this as for my money it adds nothing meaningful to the discussion at hand, which is a simply "CD Quality is not Hi-Res Audio". BTW...I still don't know what is.

John-The only reason that came up was because some people think the only thing that bit depth does is increase dynamic range. From : http://blog.bangsplatpresents.com/?p=774

The other element of audio resolution is bit depth, or quantization.

Bit depth determines the fineness with which the signal amplitude is digitized. An audio signal’s amplitude more or less correlates with its loudness or volume. The bit depth of the samples determines how many steps there are between the quietest and loudest possible sound that can be stored in that digital signal.

If there are too few steps, the signal gets “steppy” and sounds like a sequence of discrete notes rather than a smooth gradient. Chiptune and other videogame-inspired music intentionally uses audio that has been quantized to too few bits (often 8 or less) to achieve this sound.

The first thing that comes up when talking about bit depth is dynamic range. Bit depth only secondarily has to do with dynamic range, however. The quietest and loudest points in an audio signal are not fixed representations of particular sound pressure levels because there is generally a volume control involved in the playback system. Dynamic range in a digital audio signal is important primarily in the question of how many steps are necessary to achieve a smooth gradient over the full range of human hearing.

I think that Bruce gave you a good answer to your original question about where does hi-rez digital audio start. The problem is that some digital die-hards don't believe in hi-rez audio and think it's all a sham/scam. If you have the capability of playing hi-rez files on your system, you need to download an album of material that you are quite familiar with at the highest resolution your system can play and see if you like it. Downloading the two files that Bruce put up would be a fun exercise to see if you hear any difference between them and it's free.