High resolution audio(not impressed)

[pauln]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

The Lhc said "one of the" which you changed to "the" - always a shame when people misquote others, whether intentionally or not.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

The Lhc said "one of the" which you changed to "the" - always a shame when people misquote others, whether intentionally or not.

Hi,

The misquote does not impact the statement that the person has claimed that the other person is a worlds expert. Is he a world expert? If he was then all his claims and proposals would be implemented by the industry.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[TrevC]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

The worst, most offensive sibilance I've ever heard was always from poor CD players. Vinyl is never as nasty. People like Vlad like to say cdps all sound the same but in my experience the cheaper CDPs were nastiest. You think that Joan Armatrading is bad? Sometimes it's not the recording but the equipment. I've repeated this many times before - but try a cd like Scary Monsters - it will be listenable in a good system, but in lesser ones it will make you cower with you covering your ears in pain. Bowie's vocal lisps on this album are brutal.

Joan Armatrading is awful, it's the way it was cut without proper processing or de-essing, and you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

 

[BigH]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

The worst, most offensive sibilance I've ever heard was always from poor CD players. Vinyl is never as nasty. People like Vlad like to say cdps all sound the same but in my experience the cheaper CDPs were nastiest. You think that Joan Armatrading is bad? Sometimes it's not the recording but the equipment. I've repeated this many times before - but try a cd like Scary Monsters - it will be listenable in a good system, but in lesser ones it will make you cower with you covering your ears in pain. Bowie's vocal lisps on this album are brutal.

Joan Armatrading is awful, it's the way it was cut without proper processing or de-essing, and you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

Try Graceland by Paul Simon never noticed any sibilance until I heard it on vinyl, 3 different turntables and cartridges, it was different on each of course but it was much more prominent on vinyl compared to the cd. Only notice it on cd if I were listening for it.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

I have come across this assertions when reading up on the effects of dither on a digital signal and did wonder how this could be the case.

If you have the time, a few words on the basics of this might help me understand the theory, which is I find quite complex. My brain is no longer as sharp as it once was.

Hi,

For the 96dB aspect, the signal to noise (assume FSD), or dynamic range is measured across the audio bandwidth - assume 20kHz. The trick being applied is that the claim is based on the measurement bandwidth being much smaller, hence the gain in S/N, or dynamic range.

Without dither, the quantisation noise is audible as it is correlated to the signal being digitised. With dither, this correlation is spread across the audio bandwidth, and is therefore "effectively" made inaudible.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[lindsayt]

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

And you sir, have not addressed any of the points I was making.

You have played the man and not the ball.

You have used ad hominem and personal insult.

That is out of order in my book.

The theme of my comments in this thread is that I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to CD vs vinyl vs high res. That I am an empiricist. That I am challenging the assertions of others by saying "go ahead and prove it!" I have even outlined a simple series of tests with which they could prove it.

This to me makes your comments doubly insulting as they are undeserved on the basis of what I have written in this thread.

 

[shadders]

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

And you sir, have not addressed any of the points I was making.

You have played the man and not the ball.

You have used ad hominem and personal insult.

That is out of order in my book.

The theme of my comments in this thread is that I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to CD vs vinyl vs high res. That I am an empiricist. That I am challenging the assertions of others by saying "go ahead and prove it!" I have even outlined a simple series of tests with which they could prove it.

This to me makes your comments doubly insulting as they are undeserved on the basis of what I have written in this thread.

Hi,

A few years ago, in Hifi News, Ken Kessler wrote that he obtained a CD which was a recording of an album where the recording source was a reasonable quality turntable and cartridge.

He stated that it was in fact, like listening to the LP as opposed to the requisite CD recording of the same album.

Anecdotally, I suppose this indicates CD is superior to vinyl since it can emulate vinyl.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[The_Lhc]

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

And you sir, have not addressed any of the points I was making.

You have played the man and not the ball.

You have used ad hominem and personal insult.

 

That is out of order in my book.

 

The theme of my comments in this thread is that I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to CD vs vinyl vs high res. That I am an empiricist. That I am challenging the assertions of others by saying "go ahead and prove it!" I have even outlined a simple series of tests with which they could prove it.

This to me makes your comments doubly insulting as they are undeserved on the basis of what I have written in this thread.

You're making assumptions about the technology that are fundamentally wrong. The correct information is available for anyone to find. There's no point in me trying to explain something that has already been explained by others who understand the mathematics of the subject far better than I do. Especially when you've already dismissed their explanations out of hand. There's no point in trying to prove you wrong as you're incapable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong, hence the "religious" comment I made earlier.

 

[davedotco]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

I have come across this assertions when reading up on the effects of dither on a digital signal and did wonder how this could be the case.

If you have the time, a few words on the basics of this might help me understand the theory, which is I find quite complex. My brain is no longer as sharp as it once was.

Hi,

For the 96dB aspect, the signal to noise (assume FSD), or dynamic range is measured across the audio bandwidth - assume 20kHz. The trick being applied is that the claim is based on the measurement bandwidth being much smaller, hence the gain in S/N, or dynamic range.

Without dither, the quantisation noise is audible as it is correlated to the signal being digitised. With dither, this correlation is spread across the audio bandwidth, and is therefore "effectively" made inaudible.

Regards,

Shadders.

I kind of get that the application of dither and 'noise shaping' reduces quantisation noise, subjectively at least, but I still do not get how such manipulation can extend the dynamic range beyond the 96dB limit.

(Not that it matters of course, in the real world anyway)

 

[The_Lhc]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

I have come across this assertions when reading up on the effects of dither on a digital signal and did wonder how this could be the case.

If you have the time, a few words on the basics of this might help me understand the theory, which is I find quite complex. My brain is no longer as sharp as it once was.

Hi,

For the 96dB aspect, the signal to noise (assume FSD), or dynamic range is measured across the audio bandwidth - assume 20kHz.  The trick being applied is that the claim is based on the measurement bandwidth being much smaller, hence the gain in S/N, or dynamic range.

Sure, it's a trick but it's a trick that still results in a signal at a -105db level being recording onto a CD.

It's also almost entirely irrelevant, as pointed out in the article, even the 96db range of CD is as good as unusable, due to the impossibility of creating a truly silent room.

 

[lindsayt]

You're making assumptions about the technology that are fundamentally wrong. The correct information is available for anyone to find. There's no point in me trying to explain something that has already been explained by others who understand the mathematics of the subject far better than I do. Especially when you've already dismissed their explanations out of hand. There's no point in trying to prove you wrong as you're incapable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong, hence the "religious" comment I made earlier.

Stop the personal insults.

That's twice you've insulted me in 2 posts.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

I have come across this assertions when reading up on the effects of dither on a digital signal and did wonder how this could be the case.

If you have the time, a few words on the basics of this might help me understand the theory, which is I find quite complex. My brain is no longer as sharp as it once was.

Hi,

For the 96dB aspect, the signal to noise (assume FSD), or dynamic range is measured across the audio bandwidth - assume 20kHz. The trick being applied is that the claim is based on the measurement bandwidth being much smaller, hence the gain in S/N, or dynamic range.

Without dither, the quantisation noise is audible as it is correlated to the signal being digitised. With dither, this correlation is spread across the audio bandwidth, and is therefore "effectively" made inaudible.

Regards,

Shadders.

I kind of get that the application of dither and 'noise shaping' reduces quantisation noise, subjectively at least, but I still do not get how such manipulation can extend the dynamic range beyond the 96dB limit.

(Not that it matters of course, in the real world anyway)

Hi,

Dither does not increase dynamic range. The Web site, from memory (website has been quoted multiple times), states that 16bit has more dynamic range or is it signal to noise ratio???, than the stated 96dB. The measurement bandwidth for S/N is reduced to gain the extra dB's as quoted.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[BigH]

So there is no need for Hi-Res as all that seems to be able to offer is more dynamic range. Comparing Hi-Rez versions to cds on DRdatabase few have greater DR anyway, quite a few have less such as Gaucho by Steely Dan: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr?artist=steely+dan&album=gaucho

 

[BigH]

So there is no need for Hi-Res as all that seems to be able to offer is more dynamic range. Comparing Hi-Rez versions to cds on DRdatabase few have greater DR anyway, quite a few have less such as Gaucho by Steely Dan: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr?artist=steely+dan&album=gaucho

 

[davedotco]

I am still trying to work out where the 'extra' 9dB comes from.

I know it really does not matter in the real world, but I find this kind of stuff fascinating.

 

[The_Lhc]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

The Lhc said "one of the" which you changed to "the" - always a shame when people misquote others, whether intentionally or not.

Hi,

The misquote does not impact the statement that the person has claimed that the other person is a worlds expert. Is he a world expert? If he was then all his claims and proposals would be implemented by the industry.

Yeah cos that always happens doesn't it? Nobody listens to experts, "Britain has had enough of experts". Do you mean why doesn't the industry just use the available dynamic range of CD instead of compressing the hell out of it? I think that's where this conversation started, with the op complaining about a recording with a larger dynamic range than he's used to but a range that is undoubtedly still well within the specification of CD audio.

 

[The_Lhc]

So there is no need for Hi-Res as all that seems to be able to offer is more dynamic range.

In a nutsack, yes.

Comparing Hi-Rez versions to cds on DRdatabase few have greater DR anyway, quite a few have less such as Gaucho by Steely Dan: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr?artist=steely+dan&album=gaucho

Much to nobody's surprise, sadly.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

Hi,

You have to be careful with regards to the claim that he is the worlds expert on digital audio, and the greater than 96dB dynamic range.

The greater than 96dB claim is a mathematical "trick".

Regards,

Shadders.

The Lhc said "one of the" which you changed to "the" - always a shame when people misquote others, whether intentionally or not.

Hi,

The misquote does not impact the statement that the person has claimed that the other person is a worlds expert. Is he a world expert? If he was then all his claims and proposals would be implemented by the industry.

Yeah cos that always happens doesn't it? Nobody listens to experts, "Britain has had enough of experts". Do you mean why doesn't the industry just use the available dynamic range of CD instead of compressing the hell out of it? I think that's where this conversation started, with the op complaining about a recording with a larger dynamic range than he's used to but a range that is undoubtedly still well within the specification of CD audio.

Hi,

I am challenging whether he is one of the world's experts.

The website has a graph with a recorded signal at -105dB. This is 9dB lower than the stated minimum signal. If we examine the LSB of the 16bit word, all it can do is fluctuate between a 1 or a 0. If we then calculate the ratio of this signal to the maximum, then we get the 96dB figure (20*Log10(2^16) =96dB).

So where does this -105dB signal come from? Is it a sine wave? What does the signal look like in the time domain? What is the measurement bandwidth of the spectrum displayed?

If we were to amplify the signal, what would it look like? A perfect sine wave?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[manicm]

 

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

 

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

 

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

The worst, most offensive sibilance I've ever heard was always from poor CD players. Vinyl is never as nasty. People like Vlad like to say cdps all sound the same but in my experience the cheaper CDPs were nastiest. You think that Joan Armatrading is bad? Sometimes it's not the recording but the equipment. I've repeated this many times before - but try a cd like Scary Monsters - it will be listenable in a good system, but in lesser ones it will make you cower with you covering your ears in pain. Bowie's vocal lisps on this album are brutal.

 

Joan Armatrading is awful, it's the way it was cut without proper processing or de-essing, and you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience. 

Well I have, on many occasions.

 

[TrevC]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

I have an example for you. Joan Armatrading first album. The Save Me track at the end of side one. I have two copies, both have horrendous sibilance distortion that is absent from the CD.

The worst, most offensive sibilance I've ever heard was always from poor CD players. Vinyl is never as nasty. People like Vlad like to say cdps all sound the same but in my experience the cheaper CDPs were nastiest. You think that Joan Armatrading is bad? Sometimes it's not the recording but the equipment. I've repeated this many times before - but try a cd like Scary Monsters - it will be listenable in a good system, but in lesser ones it will make you cower with you covering your ears in pain. Bowie's vocal lisps on this album are brutal.

Joan Armatrading is awful, it's the way it was cut without proper processing or de-essing, and you just don't get any sibilance distortion on CD in my experience.

Well I have, on many occasions.

You haven't heard distortion, but you may have heard an accentuated treble response that makes sibilance in the recording more noticeable. Or you might just have bright speakers.

 

[TrevC]

OK so you know more about the subject than one of the world's preeminent experts on digital audio, my mistake*.

*My mistake, obviously, was trying to argue with a religious~ fundamentalist, should have realized there's no point in that.

~ and I don't mean in the God sense of the word.

And you sir, have not addressed any of the points I was making.

You have played the man and not the ball.

You have used ad hominem and personal insult.

That is out of order in my book.

The theme of my comments in this thread is that I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to CD vs vinyl vs high res. That I am an empiricist. That I am challenging the assertions of others by saying "go ahead and prove it!" I have even outlined a simple series of tests with which they could prove it.

This to me makes your comments doubly insulting as they are undeserved on the basis of what I have written in this thread.

Hi,

A few years ago, in Hifi News, Ken Kessler wrote that he obtained a CD which was a recording of an album where the recording source was a reasonable quality turntable and cartridge.

He stated that it was in fact, like listening to the LP as opposed to the requisite CD recording of the same album.

Anecdotally, I suppose this indicates CD is superior to vinyl since it can emulate vinyl.

Regards,

Shadders.

Exactly. I have a Pioneer CD recorder which should automatically change the track when a gap is detected in the music but it doesn't work on LPs even on the lowest sensitivity because of the roar from the vinyl, but it does make a faithful copy.

 

[manicm]

You haven't heard distortion, but you may have heard an accentuated treble response that makes sibilance in the recording more noticeable. Or you might just have bright speakers.

No, no and no to all your assumptions, in my own system, and at dealers some CD players were clearly more equal to others in otherwise the exact same system. And when I say sibilance i mean to the point of ears being hurt. I always took along Scary Monsters when I was in the market to purchase.

 

[andyjm]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

Lindsayt,

I studied digital signal processing as part of my degree over 30 years ago. I have forgotten most of it, and what I remember I can't now prove as my maths ability is a shadow of its former glory.

What I do remember is that there is much about sampling and processing that is counter-intuitive. If you are trying to get a layman's grasp of how it all works, then I applaud you for your effort, but don't expect to get comfortable, because some of it just doesn't feel right.

The world around you is digital, sampled, and works. From your phone, camera, car, TV, Hifi - it all depends on sampling and DSP. Now it is always possible you have spotted a flaw, but my guess is you just don't understand it.

No shame in keep striving to understand it, but be open to the possibility that it is you rather than the rest of the world that needs to figure it out.

 

[busb]

There are many things in life that are beyond my understanding, often abstract maths that I have to take as being the case. I generally don't dismiss them just because they don't sit easily with my current belief systems. I am also aware that scientists veheremently disagree with each over so it's not always cut & dried. Digital audio is however, fairly well understood.

I would sooner trust a respected engineer such as Jim Lesurf:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/inadither/Page1.html

over the bull often spouted on forums or in shops.

I'm affraid there's no substitute but to read, re-read, mull concepts over then read again until understood.

 

[shadders]

Lindsayt your assumptions are wrong.

This link is frequently posted to show that 192khz sample rates can be harmful but further down the page is an explanation of the dynamic range of 16-bit and how it's actually higher than 96db. It's somewhat technical in nature but sometimes this stuff can't be explained in "layman's terms". I suggest you read it, your entire argument is completely false.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b

And I say this as a vinyl fan. So I have no agenda other than accuracy.

That link does not address my concerns.

It does not contain a recording of music on CD done at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible levels.

I'd also like to know how he generated his -105 db test tone.

You can not say my assumptions are wrong until you have heard a variety of music recorded on CD at 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible level and compared that recording to either the live performance or a recording done at more commonly used levels.

Hi,

The website is using a mathematical analysis (trick).

If you examine the wave file for -105dB, it has values upto 6 which equates to about 2.5 bits.

So if the smallest signal that can be represented is -96dB (dynamic range), effectively the least significant bit being modified, then how is it that upto +/-2.5bits being used, is a signal at -105dB???

It is not representing a sine wave as we would expect it to be at a much higher signal level, or a lower signal level with a visually granular/staircase time domain response. It is a mixture of relatively wideband noise, and an embedded 1kHz signal, that when the FFT is performed, the 1kHz signal is about 35dB greater than the noise density.

You could hide more different sinusoidal signals, by raising the dither (wideband noise) level, say, use 5bits, but then the embedded signal level in the time domain is small compared to the dither, but again, the FFT spreads the noise signal, showing peaks of the sinusoids.

Regards

Shadders.