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

[BigH]

Hi,

I can definitely hear the difference between the following :

Speakers - this i think is easy to differentiate.

My old Audiolab 8000A (circa 1992) and the Cambridge Audio 650.

My old Pioneer DVD Player DV-717 and my Cambridge Audio DVD Player 540D.

My Cambridge Audio DVD Player 540D and Audiolab 8200AP.

I think for the same generation DAC's, the difference is minimal, when compared to speaker/amplifier combination pairs.

Not sure what the future holds for Hifi separates - DAC's do seem to be popular - quite a few cheap ones available.

Regards,

Shadders.

Well there does seem to be a shift to more all-in-ones rather than separates and there are more active speakers coming out, so who knows. The popular choice seems to less boxes and smaller speakers maybe this is due to room sizes and house prices, also the wife seems to have more of an influence these days.

 

[Helmut80]

I think legacy separate 'Hi-end audiophile' DACs are trending towards the junk piles, along with VHS recorders, CD players, Cassette players, and FM tuners.

Modern HiFi only needs a digital source and active speakers, - the dac is simply part of one or the other, nowadays.

JC

Inevitable!

(Have the B&W A7 power dock, listen to it 80% of the time, the rest is vinyl)

got the A7 as a casual background kitchen system initially, and now it is used a lot more than I anticipated. Really impressed with it.

 

[jcbrum]

I think legacy separate 'Hi-end audiophile' ...

You missed out 'foo'.

Modern HiFi only needs a digital source and active speakers ...

You missed out AVI before "active speakers".

Well, If you think that's what I should have said, Chebby, It seems I didn't need to, since you seem to want to re-write my posts to suit yourself.

Perhaps you're on the wrong forum ?

JC

 

[the record spot]

p.p.s. Wolfson Microelectronics is a British company, founded in 1984, and based in Edinburgh, Scotland. - JC

Just at Westfield Road near Gorgie in fact and in some rather smart offices.

 

[fr0g]

I think legacy separate 'Hi-end audiophile' DACs are trending towards the junk piles, along with VHS recorders, CD players, Cassette players, and FM tuners.

Modern HiFi only needs a digital source and active speakers, - the dac is simply part of one or the other, nowadays.

JC

I think separate DACs are here for a while yet.

What I'd agree with is they need not be expensive.

But most PCs can be improved with an external sound card of some sort.

AMD9s with DAC are an exception rather than the rule, and I think it's likely most people who buy actives with no DAC or preamp will end up using an external one of some sort, whether it be an AV receiver, or simply a Beresford / Dac Magic like device.

I'd guess the number of people using speakers with only one source would be a small minority too. So unless you want to constantly switch cables, then an external device is preferable.

And I don't care what anyone says. Music on my ADMs sounds far better from a digital source than from any of my phones headphone socket.

 

[John Duncan]

And I don't care what anyone says. Music on my ADMs sounds far better from a digital source than from any of my phones headphone socket.

Burn the witch!

 

[NHL]

And I don't care what anyone says. Music on my ADMs sounds far better from a digital source than from any of my phones headphone socket.

Burn the witch!

This frooze my Mac, must be a virus! (Otherwise it was funny)

 

[manicm]

Ok. Here is an MP3 in low bitrate of the Linn 24/192 test track (freely available from the LinnMusic web site)

http://www11.zippyshare.com/v/77734118/file.html

Now here is the file I made of the differences between that and a 16/44.1 version I created in Audacity with the "resample" function...

This is at 192 KHz sample rate and 16 bit depth.

http://www11.zippyshare.com/v/68836622/file.html

What do you hear?

Yes, in the flac file I hear nothing, but more importantly the 128kb file doesn't sound good at all. So this proves...what???

 

[fr0g]

Ok. Here is an MP3 in low bitrate of the Linn 24/192 test track (freely available from the LinnMusic web site)

http://www11.zippyshare.com/v/77734118/file.html

Now here is the file I made of the differences between that and a 16/44.1 version I created in Audacity with the "resample" function...

This is at 192 KHz sample rate and 16 bit depth.

http://www11.zippyshare.com/v/68836622/file.html

What do you hear?

Yes, in the flac file I hear nothing, but more importantly the 128kb file doesn't sound good at all. So this proves...what???

Not sure what you're trying to gain here. What is your point?

I'd say the 128 Kbps file was perfectly "ok" but it is there simply to demonstrate the music I used, nothing else. In fact, looking at the spectrum plot I could imagine on a weedy amp it could sound quite bad as it is way off using the peak volume of the format, so turning right up might cause amp clipping.

As for the actual reason for posting...the DIFFERENCE file is the difference between the 192 , 24 original and my downsampled 44.1 , 16 file...ie nothing audible.

 

[lindsayt]

Turning the amp right up will not cause clipping if the recording is at a very low level.

If the volume knob is adjusted to give equal loudness on two recordings at different recording levels then clipping is equally likely or unlikely to happen with both.

 

[fr0g]

Turning the amp right up will not cause clipping if the recording is at a very low level.

If the volume knob is adjusted to give equal loudness on two recordings at different recording levels then clipping is equally likely or unlikely to happen with both.

Surely If I need to push the amp harder to get the same volume then it is more likely to struggle. A weedy 25watt amp may very well run into difficulty playing a quiet recording at a volume I want, rather than a 200 watt amp. I have experienced this between my Arcam amp (60 Watts) and my old Lyngdorf (200)...Whether it is clipping or not, it sounds much worse on the weaker amp.

 

[lindsayt]

But you're not pushing the amp harder. You're pushing the amp just the same if it's coming out of the speakers at the same volume as the louder recording.

All you're doing is wasting away less of the input with the volume knob with the quieter recording.

The volume knob comes before the power amp section. It's the power amp section that clips.

 

[lindsayt]

And if your Arcam sounded worse than your Lyngdorf at moderate volumes that just means the Lyngdorf was the better amp.

The best sounding amp that I have has 8 watts, followed by my 300 watt amp, followed by my 20 watt and 150 watt amps equally followed by my 40 watt amp.

In a way this is coming back to the whole theme of this thread. Amplifier power specifications tell you nothing about the sound quality at sub-clipping volumes, just as many other specifications in hi-fi tell you nothing, or very little.

 

[NHL]

just as many other specifications in hi-fi tell you nothing, or very little.

Couldn´t agree more, in the 80's Japanese amps had over the top THD specifications but sounded shrill and thin.

Since blind testing is not used in Audio, then progress is very slow.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

just as many other specifications in hi-fi tell you nothing, or very little.

Couldn´t agree more, in the 80's Japanese amps had over the top THD specifications but sounded shrill and thin.

Since blind testing is not used in Audio, then progress is very slow.

quite the contrary. measurements say all about equipments' performance (not only in audio). re. 80's Japanese budget gear Bruno Putzeys of Hypex and Mola Mola claims that it was just a marketing plot, because those guys knew no one would ever evaluate that gear. high-end Japanese gear of that time didn't "measure" that well but sounded a lot better. this was simply because manufacturers of that gear knew their figures wil be put to scrutiny through hi-fi mags tesking regime.

if you want to I encourage you to read some white papers on Hypex amp modules. they submit a lot of graphs and interpretation. you'll see that those things are immaculate measurement-wise but the subjective listening reviews don't let you think they sound bad. in fact what reviewers usually say about Hypex is that it "doesn't have any sound of its own".

sorry for drifftig off the topic.

 

[NHL]

just as many other specifications in hi-fi tell you nothing, or very little.

Couldn´t agree more, in the 80's Japanese amps had over the top THD specifications but sounded shrill and thin.

Since blind testing is not used in Audio, then progress is very slow.

quite the contrary. measurements say all about equipments' performance (not only in audio). re. 80's Japanese budget gear Bruno Putzeys of Hypex and Mola Mola claims that it was just a marketing plot, because those guys knew no one would ever evaluate that gear. high-end Japanese gear of that time didn't "measure" that well but sounded a lot better. this was simply because manufacturers of that gear knew their figures wil be put to scrutiny through hi-fi mags tesking regime.

if you want to I encourage you to read some white papers on Hypex amp modules. they submit a lot of graphs and interpretation. you'll see that those things are immaculate measurement-wise but the subjective listening reviews don't let you think they sound bad. in fact what reviewers usually say about Hypex is that it "doesn't have any sound of its own".

sorry for drifftig off the topic.

It's important to identify valid parameters to measure. It seems far too often that all kinds of irrelevant measures are performed.

 

[Anonymous]

[EDITED BY MODS AND USER BANNED - house rules]

 

[shadders]

Hi,

The latest trend seems to be low global feedback or zero global feedback. This means that the amplifier feedback is local - depending upon topology.

Is this actually better or just a trend/marketting approach ?.

As posted by oldric_naubhoff "in fact what reviewers usually say about Hypex is that it "doesn't have any sound of its own"."

So the amplifier may be measured as high performance - but people like to hear the affect of distortion ?

An amplifier i think can be modified (solid state) to introduce 2nd order harmonics (topology dependent) - so is this what people like - an amplifier that has this "quality" which contradicts the requirement for a reduced THD ?.

Hifi News Ken Kessler quite a few months ago stated that you can buy a CD that is a recording of a LP - and it sounds just like an LP. So are CD/high bit rate recordings too good for our ears ?, and we prefer the resonances or distortions of record players or cartridges ?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Zalayeta]

http://www.whathifi.com/news/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

The way the word resolution is used in this article is exactly the way marketing people wants us to talk and think!

But it's incorrect.

Why don't they make a correction?

 

[fr0g]

Hands , biting, feed.

There is a popular phrase in those 3 words if you add a few.

 

[matt49]

http://www.whathifi.com/news/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

The way the word resolution is used in this article is exactly the way marketing people wants us to talk and think!

But it's incorrect.

Why don't they make a correction?

Have you sent an e-mail to the editorial staff to point out the "error"?

 

[fr0g]

Getting back on topic, can anyone recommend a HD recording they feel shows off the format?

I feel the Linn track I tested was rather limited.

I have some others, but I'd like to test something that somebody feels is excellent.

 

[CnoEvil]

Getting back on topic, can anyone recommend a HD recording they feel shows off the format?

I feel the Linn track I tested was rather limited.

I have some others, but I'd like to test something that somebody feels is excellent.

Ian Shaw "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things" by Linn Records.

It's a very simple recording that imo. allows you to hear more ambient information at the higher resolution. eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

 

[fr0g]

Getting back on topic, can anyone recommend a HD recording they feel shows off the format?

I feel the Linn track I tested was rather limited.

I have some others, but I'd like to test something that somebody feels is excellent.

Ian Shaw "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things" by Linn Records.

It's a very simple recording that imo. allows you to hear more ambient information at the higher resolution. eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

Excellent.

Ok, as a test, I have now bought that track from Linn (2.5 euros)

It was a 40 MB download.

I have downsampled it to 16 bits. The original is only 48 KHz anyway

I have compared the 16 bit version with the 24 bit studio master.

The difference plot...

http://i.imgur.com/s0cC0g1.jpg?1?6669

(full size image)

As you can see the difference is some sound at -76 dB and beginning at 17.5 KHz. Quite inaudible.

Conclusion, the 24 bit 48 KHz recording, and subsequently the 40 MB download requirement, is a waste.

There is absolutely no audible difference between the file at a lower resolution and the one they supply.

 

[CnoEvil]

Getting back on topic, can anyone recommend a HD recording they feel shows off the format?

I feel the Linn track I tested was rather limited.

I have some others, but I'd like to test something that somebody feels is excellent.

Ian Shaw "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things" by Linn Records.

It's a very simple recording that imo. allows you to hear more ambient information at the higher resolution. eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

Excellent.

Ok, as a test, I have now bought that track from Linn (2.5 euros)

It was a 40 MB download.

I have downsampled it to 16 bits. The original is only 48 KHz anyway

I have compared the 16 bit version with the 24 bit studio master.

The difference plot...

http://i.imgur.com/s0cC0g1.jpg?1?6669

(full size image)

As you can see the difference is some sound at -76 dB and beginning at 17.5 KHz. Quite inaudible.

Conclusion, the 24 bit 48 KHz recording, and subsequently the 40 MB download requirement, is a waste.

There is absolutely no audible difference between the file at a lower resolution and the one they supply.

That is certainly interesting, and it's good that you did the experiment.

FWIW. I am comparing their 16 bit version, with their 24 bit version, which "may" explain why I hear a difference.....as it's quite possible that they are from slightly different masters.

If you can be bothered, download the 16 bit version, and see what that shows up.