How many bits are really meaningful?

[fas42]

Soooo, those super tweeters (50 kHz), are simply obsolete?

No, just that separate drivers that handle the very top of the audio range with ease is a good thing, provided the crossover is well handled. Reason being, human hearing is most sensitive to high frequency distortion, and anything you do to minimise that will be a benefit.

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

And them super tweeters (beryllium, diamond, spun aluminum, ribbon, etc.), how many bits can they handle? ...Meaningful bits that is.

* Me thought that 100 kHz audio information helps to clarify lower information from the human frequency range.

Is there somethin' we just don't know yet about Sound? ...And Digital Sound?
Are sounds of nature analog or digital? Do they contain Bits? ...Or bits of stuff that we just don't know, us humans, but that animals, like birds, eagles, dags, elephants, mammoths, giraffes, jaguars, panthers, whales, etc., know (hear) that helps them to be better animals, hunters, predators? ...

 

[fas42]

Incidents of audio Satori? I've not only read of them, Frank, I've witnessed them; I've experienced them. We agree that it doesn't require remarkable equipment to achieve these breakthroughs. We disagree that the equipment is the source of the experience. I mean this in the most positive, respectful, supportive possible way, Frank -- It's all in your head. Enjoy.

Tim

In spite of what you say, Tim, we are on the same page, specifically of wanting a postive audio experience. You have one method of achieving it, people who create highly specialised listening rooms with extensive wall and roof treatments are doing it another way, and I, and a few others have a third. All of these techniques are pandering to the peculiarities of the ear/brain interface to our consciousness.

My proposition, expounded here many times as all are aware, is that unpleasant distortion is the nemesis of the mind being able to "accept" the illusion of the musical event. Your technique to achieving that condition is to have a relatively clean system working at a very low level of stress. The "room solution" allows distortion to be generated acoustically, but then mitigates its audible effect by dispersing and absorbing the worst elements in various ways. My approach, which mimics your tactic, is to minimise the distortion being spawned in the first place, which I've found can be done very satisfactorily by refining the functioning of the electronic circuitry.

The "advantage" of my technique is that it allows for much higher volume levels, and replay of "poor" recordings. The other 2 methods have their limits, especially with "lower quality" source material, and are frequently very expensive. Thus, I believe I have achieved somewhat of an improvement in getting to the universally desired end goal, emotionally satisfying playback of recordings.

Frank

 

[fas42]

Is there somethin' we just don't know yet about Sound? ...And Digital Sound?
Are sounds of nature analog or digital? Do they contain Bits? ...Or bits of stuff that we just don't know, us humans, but that animals, like birds, eagles, dags, elephants, mammoths, giraffes, jaguars, panthers, whales, etc., know (hear) that helps them to be better animals, hunters, predators? ...

What we know, but "don't know", about sound is that we humans hate, I mean hate, unpleasantness in the sound: the dragging of fingernails down the blackboard type of thing. All my experiments with sound, Bob, have shown me is that it's not about adding extra bits, information, to the sound; it's taking away those "bits", distortion, that shouldn't be there. Haven't you noticed that the same people that talk of having super high frequencies in their sound also talk about sloping down the frequency response at the high end, adding a treble cut. The left hand is saying, Pump it up, and the right hand is saying, No, no, no, pull it back! That has to be a reason for this seeming contradiction ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

But then, isn't mainly about the Music Frank? The Music foremost?

Anything else is about Reproduction, from a transfer.
And reproduction is secondary to emotion.

* Man loves to have Power, and exercises his own rules...
But the message always gets distorted at the end;
because the original 'signal' was misinterpreted right from the beginning...

 

[fas42]

But then, isn't mainly about the Music Frank? The Music foremost?

Anything else is about Reproduction, from a transfer.
And reproduction is secondary to emotion.

* Man loves to have Power, and exercises his own rules...
But the message always gets distorted at the end;
because the original 'signal' was misinterpreted right from the beginning...

Of course, it's about the Music, Bob, I wouldn't be in this game otherwise! And the Emotion. That's why I gave hifi away for about 10 years, it sounded really yuckky: every now and again I would check out the nearest high end store. Nah, same ol' crappy sound, like a young kid trying to impress someone with his "new" car: all tarted up, make lots of noise, but as far as something that you want to live with for a decent time, forget it!!

The key point is that if you get the reproduction "right", then the music and emotion automatically follow; we can't help to do so, part of the human condition IS to respond to the musical cues.

And, yes, distortion, "misinterpretation" has to be part of the equation, but it IS possible to reduce it to a level that we humans can then forgive its transgressions. At least, I can: at the moment I have on Beethoven piano sonatas at near correct volume levels and I can ignore it, or tune into it, as I wish. In the same way as if someone in the house was an accomplished pianist, it is just part of the sound scenery, it doesn't clash with anything, or draw attention to itself. It's just Music ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

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

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

________________________

Soooo, how many Bits? :b

 

[Bruce B]

A local studio just showed me their video they recorded and put on YouTube... It actually sounds good from YouTube. Can't believe it. Goes to show you that great mic/recording technique win every time!

 

[NorthStar]

Yes Bruce, in particular the sound of the accordion.

 

[bblue]

A local studio just showed me their video they recorded and put on YouTube... It actually sounds good from YouTube. Can't believe it. Goes to show you that great mic/recording technique win every time!

It certainly helps to start with a well recorded source, do a good full range mix with minimal compression/limiting and no excessive eq or other processing. And of course, include good musicians!

The audio track on that video is the equivalent of a standard 128k 16bit mp3 with a hard 16k ceiling. You can bet that the original sounds considerably better than that.

A 44.1k 16-bit wav would sound considerably better than the mp3 on good equipment. If you could get to the original recording, it's undoubtedly 24-bit, and at least 48k, maybe higher, and would be superior sonically. Most pro studios use 96k to 192k tracking and mixing speeds at 24-bit depth, sometimes with a combination of digital and analog gear. That would get mixed at the prevailing bit rate and depth. From there it would get stepped down to the desired target bit rate and depth, or some studios will do a separate render of the mix for each bit rate and depth to minimize down convert loss. A step down to a 44k-16bit mix master with a quality dither is usually as low as it goes, for standard CD distribution. Then mp3's and other lossy formats are made from that. If your original is a low sampling rate with a lot of processing it will not step down or convert as well, and won't convert to mp3 or other lossy formats as well.

Typically, studio monitoring systems are high enough resolution to clearly delineate the various sample and bit rates from one another. It's very distinctive, and once you have heard it you will easily recognize the differences in any quality playback system.

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.

For home use, 20-bit is probably sufficient since that resolves to about 120db of dynamic range. But that is most significant if there is also a high sampling rate (at least double 44.1k). Professionally, 24-bit would be considered the minimum at 144db of dynamic range, since standard practice is to record tracks at levels no higher than -12db (some use -18 or -20db as guideline) with no worry, since you have so much dynamic range at your disposal. No matter what, your signal to noise ratio is in excess of 120db.

Yes, there is *much* higher quality audio beyond a standard CD.

--Bill

 

[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! :b I can totally relate to it.

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

________________________

Soooo, how many Bits? :b

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 ... :b:b

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 ... :b:b

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 ... ?? :b

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 ... ?? :b

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). :b

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. :b

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

Best,
Bob