High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[Anonymous]

Then can I kindly suggest that you both butt out......... :doh:

No. I am entitled to post what I like as much as any on here. It's all quite sad though really, doesn't everyone think?

*Retires, for now, to 320 kbps MP3 audio ripped onto PC with a modest 16-bit DAC.

Weren't you demanding that the thread be locked a few pages ago? So you are entitled to post as much as you like, but the rest of us aren't?

I was merely pointing out this thread has gone precisely nowhere, is quite nasty at times, and should be closed.

 

[Anonymous]

This is how they build posts. Post something controversial. Be controversial. Wind people up. Be more controversial. Troll a bit.

Ad infinitum.

Sad.

Who are "they" ? and what have you got against "them" ?

JC

The posters who do precisely that.

 

[Anonymous]

Some here just don't seem to understand the simple concept of ignoring threads they don't like - they effectively troll them I instead. The only reason I can think of is that they are so arrogant that they expect every thread to be either interesting (to them) or understandable - when not, they kick up.

Some? It is my right to ignore, post, not post or simply read. EDIT.

 

[davedotco]

"So please, without insults or petty put-downs, can someone give me any concrete,scientific information on why they think HD (for playback) is any better?"

No insults, I went to Cymbiosis earlier this afternoon, and my ears told me that HD sounded better, even on a blind listening test.

"Remastered" was generally not as good as the original. The computer term GIGO "Garbage In Garbage Out" springs to mind. A rip taken from an original CD could sound better than a HD download if the download wasn't done from an original master tape.

As Linn say "Just Listen" :cheers:

I think most people have heard differences between different 'issues' of the same track. Most of the time these are pretty obvious differences in mixing or more likely mastering.

The question remains, were any of the positive differences that you heard in your blind tests due to the playback being hi-res. Unless you are absolutely sure of what you are comparing, ie Red Book and hi-res versions of exactly the same track, then meaningful conclusions can not really be made.

Nobody disputes that Linn produce some pretty fine sounding hi-res downloads, the real question that is being asked is whether this quality is a product of their mastering or simply the advantage of the hi-res format.

Nice to hear that you are trying things for yourself, that is always enlightening.

 

[NHL]

Measurements in hi-fi can be a funny old thing. For example here's the results from putting 10 khz square waves through 2 different £multi-thousand amps. One of them has less than 0.06% THD+N, whilst the other has less than 5% THD+N.

Can you guess which amplifier produced which oscilloscope output?

And how these measurements relate to how they actually sound?

I would be interested to know what the amps are, 5% does seems very high?

Any more hint about the amps?

 

[basshound]

What's far more important to music lovers is less to do with sampling rate & a lot more to do with quality recordings to start with!

Nail/Head interface :clap:

 

[jcbrum]

I would be interested to know what the amps are, 5% does seems very high?

Any more hint about the amps?

The test signal is at 10kHz, few amp manufacturers would be happy with 5% as an overall figure, but with legacy Class D amps distortion rises dramatically with frequency and power delivery.

So my guess is the 5% amp is Class D.

But that is just a guess really. There really isn't enough info as has been said by another poster.

JC

 

[Sospri]

This is how they build posts. Post something controversial. Be controversial. Wind people up. Be more controversial. Troll a bit.

Ad infinitum.

Sad.

Exactly. The hddi truck rolls on...

Then can I kindly suggest that you both butt out......... :doh:

I have made quite a few posts on here and some of my assertations have been challenged in such a way as to change my perception of the way digital audio works in practice.

By moving my understanding forward it helps me to choose and get the best out of my, and other peoples, systems.

Personally I consider that worthwhile.

It should be pointed out that this is a public forum and members are entitled to post their view whether you agree with it or not.

Its not here for your personal use................

 

[Alec]

This is how they build posts. Post something controversial. Be controversial. Wind people up. Be more controversial. Troll a bit.

Ad infinitum.

Sad.

Exactly. The hddi truck rolls on...

Then can I kindly suggest that you both butt out......... :doh:

I have made quite a few posts on here and some of my assertations have been challenged in such a way as to change my perception of the way digital audio works in practice.

By moving my understanding forward it helps me to choose and get the best out of my, and other peoples, systems.

Personally I consider that worthwhile.

It should be pointed out that this is a public forum...

Should it? I mean, again?!

 

[lindsayt]

NHL, the amps are an Anthem Statement M1 and a Yamamoto A08. I got the 10khz square waves from the Stereophile website.

What those square wave diagrams illustrate is that there's no link between THD+N and how well an amp can reproduce a square wave. If there were, you'd expect the Anthem to have a much better shaped square wave than the Yamamoto. Even when you filter out the jaggly bits the Anthem still has a worse shaped square wave.

Far too often when distortion is discussed in hi-fi, people are referring to Total Harmonic Distortion. But that is not the only distortion found in hi-fi equipment as these square waves show. Total distortion (of all types) of any piece of hi-fi equipment can not be quantified by THD measurements.

Coming to my main point: all these technical details and measurements are very well, but none of them tells us how these amplifiers sound.

In the same way, technical measurements of the CD format and High Res are all very well, but they won't tell us how they sound. And neither will mathematical theories or laws.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

It should be pointed out that this is a public forum and members are entitled to post their view whether you agree with it or not.

Its not here for your personal use................

I suppose he had to find out some day ....

 

[davedotco]

It should be pointed out that this is a public forum and members are entitled to post their view whether you agree with it or not.

Its not here for your personal use................

I suppose he had to find out some day ....

I know, I know........ :shame:

It just strikes me as a bit sad just going onto threads that you have no interest in just to try and put people down. They are perfectly entitled to do so, just as we are entitled to consider such a poster as rather a sad individual and a bit of an............. :silenced:

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Don't disagree mate, but, yourself excepted, the ratpack are pretty rude if you dare to disagree with them. A bit like rolling up in the members stand at the MCG on boxing day and supporting England.

 

[jcbrum]

Coming to my main point: all these technical details and measurements are very well, but none of them tells us how these amplifiers sound.

In the same way, technical measurements of the CD format and High Res are all very well, but they won't tell us how they sound. And neither will mathematical theories or laws.

Hmmm, I don't agree with that.

First off, there is no correlation between the two circumstances. Amplifier distortion has no relationship to digital bit depth or sample rate. It is a 'straw man' to suggest there is.

Secondly there have been plenty of examples given to show the effect of quantisation error, and dithering to resolve it. Similarly the effect of 'aliasing' and frequency response being dependant on sample rate is easily measurable and demonstratable.

Also, so far, there is a strong feeling that the quality of recording and mastering has a far bigger effect on sound quality, than anything else.

JC

 

[NHL]

NHL, the amps are an Anthem Statement M1 and a Yamamoto A08. I got the 10khz square waves from the Stereophile website.

What those square wave diagrams illustrate is that there's no link between THD+N and how well an amp can reproduce a square wave. If there were, you'd expect the Anthem to have a much better shaped square wave than the Yamamoto. Even when you filter out the jaggly bits the Anthem still has a worse shaped square wave.

Far too often when distortion is discussed in hi-fi, people are referring to Total Harmonic Distortion. But that is not the only distortion found in hi-fi equipment as these square waves show. Total distortion (of all types) of any piece of hi-fi equipment can not be quantified by THD measurements.

Coming to my main point: all these technical details and measurements are very well, but none of them tells us how these amplifiers sound.

In the same way, technical measurements of the CD format and High Res are all very well, but they won't tell us how they sound. And neither will mathematical theories or laws.

Blind tests would be one way going forward, but they might not be in the interest of the manufacturers or magazines.

 

[busb]

This is how they build posts. Post something controversial. Be controversial. Wind people up. Be more controversial. Troll a bit.

Ad infinitum.

Sad.

Exactly. The hddi truck rolls on...

Then can I kindly suggest that you both butt out......... :doh:

I have made quite a few posts on here and some of my assertations have been challenged in such a way as to change my perception of the way digital audio works in practice.

By moving my understanding forward it helps me to choose and get the best out of my, and other peoples, systems.

Personally I consider that worthwhile.

It should be pointed out that this is a public forum and members are entitled to post their view whether you agree with it or not.

Its not here for your personal use................

I am perfectly entitled to pick my nose in public, I choose not to. How is posting spoilers contributing to a topic many find interesting? It's so simple - don't post in threads that lack interest for you. To me, it smacks of selfishness. I could be obnoxious to people I meet because I can but again choose not to! Dave's contribution has been pretty even-handed IMO.

 

[Alec]

The point is people can try and hear for themselves. Nothing wrong with that - you afraid the results may not be what you think, mate?

You talk big words about science but when it comes to applying it, you don't want to.

Just a reminder of the nature of your first contribution to the thread, by way of reply to your most recent post (as of the time of writing).

 

[davedotco]

Don't disagree mate, but, yourself excepted, the ratpack are pretty rude if you dare to disagree with them. A bit like rolling up in the members stand at the MCG on boxing day and supporting England.

Glad you have noticed, my new years resolution to be polite is holding so far, I have come close to breaking it on occasion but so far, so good.

I have been to the MCG for a Test but sadly not against England. Only about 8,000 in, so a bit dissapointing.

On the other hand I have supported England from the 'Hill' at Sydney, good fun that. Sadly all built over now, only Adelaide left with a 'Hill' I think.

We visited Adelaide back in '88, it was closed.

 

[Alec]

That's the first time I've seen "spoiler"in that context.

 

[Anonymous]

It just strikes me as a bit sad just going onto threads that you have no interest in just to try and put people down. They are perfectly entitled to do so, just as we are entitled to consider such a poster as rather a sad individual and a bit of an............. :silenced:

I have an interest in the forum being interesting, not some pointless thread which is going nowhere. Now who is putting people down? Say what you mean rather than hiding behind dots and smilies. I'm new here and frankly, it's not making much of an impression so far.

Honestly.

 

[busb]

That's the first time I've seen "spoiler"in that context.

indeed! Makes a change from "trolling" though.

 

[Alec]

Glad you have noticed, my new years resolution to be polite is holding so far...

Matter of opinion rather than fact, though, eh.

 

[Alec]

it's not making much of an impression so far.

Unlike you.

 

[shadders]

NHL, the amps are an Anthem Statement M1 and a Yamamoto A08. I got the 10khz square waves from the Stereophile website.

What those square wave diagrams illustrate is that there's no link between THD+N and how well an amp can reproduce a square wave. If there were, you'd expect the Anthem to have a much better shaped square wave than the Yamamoto. Even when you filter out the jaggly bits the Anthem still has a worse shaped square wave.

Far too often when distortion is discussed in hi-fi, people are referring to Total Harmonic Distortion. But that is not the only distortion found in hi-fi equipment as these square waves show. Total distortion (of all types) of any piece of hi-fi equipment can not be quantified by THD measurements.

Coming to my main point: all these technical details and measurements are very well, but none of them tells us how these amplifiers sound.

In the same way, technical measurements of the CD format and High Res are all very well, but they won't tell us how they sound. And neither will mathematical theories or laws.

Hi,

The first square wave indicates that the amplifier has a capacitively decoupled input. This is a typical response of a Capacitance-Resistance circuit for a step input change.

The jaggly bits on the second trace are harmonic distortion.

I would state that Total Harmonic Distortion does represent the distortion of the amplifier in its entirety.

A theoretical perfect amplifier is supposed to have only gain, therefore any deviation from a simple scalar factor (gain) will be represented as distortion - that is a non-linearity.

THD measures this.

The "squareness" of the output is simply an indication of the amplifier bandwidth, and the filtering characteristics of the amplifier topology, not distortion.

Agreed that an objective measurement is not indication of a subjective sound evaluation.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Anonymous]

Unlike you.

King of the pointless post. Grow up.