Question re Hi-Res Audio

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

mond

New member
Jan 11, 2011
10
0
0
Not sure if any of you heard the dem Cyrus were doing at the Bristol show (sorry I haven't read all the posts in this long thread) but it was quite interesting. They played a standard cd (on a top of the range Cyrus machine) then a high res version via a Cyrus streamer followed by a vinyl version of same track via a Linn record deck and Michell one, using the new? Cyrus phono stage (Phil Collins first dem, Beatles second dem) The results were pretty unanimous in the room that the vinyl sounded best, as in more natural and more engaging. In second place was the high res and third the standard cd. This was quite a brave demo from Cyrus as although they were trying to flog their phono stage it also left most people in the room thinking that vinyl was best (although I think they were mainly preaching to the converted at this particular demo) I don't have any great affinity to vinyl personally and haven't owned a record deck in a couple of decades but the difference between the 3 (or 4 if you count the 2 separate turntables) was quite noticeable. Anyway to cut a long story short there was quite a noticeable difference between the high res and regular digital recordings (16 vs 24 bit) One person commented on the Beatles track that the 16 bit version sounded like a Beatles tribute band compared to the high res!
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
mond said:
Not sure if any of you heard the dem Cyrus were doing at the Bristol show (sorry I haven't read all the posts in this long thread) but it was quite interesting. They played a standard cd (on a top of the range Cyrus machine) then a high res version via a Cyrus streamer followed by a vinyl version of same track via a Linn record deck and Michell one, using the new? Cyrus phono stage (Phil Collins first dem, Beatles second dem)  The results were pretty unanimous in the room that the vinyl sounded best, as in more natural and more engaging. In second place was the high res and third the standard cd. This was quite a brave demo from Cyrus as although they were trying to flog their phono stage it also left most people in the room thinking that vinyl was best (although I think they were mainly preaching to the converted at this particular demo) I don't have any great affinity to vinyl personally and haven't owned a record deck in a couple of decades but the difference between the 3 (or 4 if you count the 2 separate turntables) was quite noticeable.
Anyway to cut a long story short there was quite a noticeable difference between the high res and regular digital recordings (16 vs 24 bit) One person commented on the Beatles track that the 16 bit version sounded like a Beatles tribute band compared to the high res!
just got back from my mates..we listened to radiohead kid a..on his linn sondek, it sounded very good..he has a good cd player as well..it sounded very good on that too..sadly it hasnt been issued on 78 format! So i cant compare to my player..
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
0
0
Vladimir said:
MQA part 1; Why 24 bit 192 kHz audio?
Vlad, great link. Thanks. I liked the guy's style.

Got a few things wrong. "the reason we use 24 bits not 20 is because computers work in powers of 2" Not sure what that is all about.

I think his argument for greater bit depth than 16 bits didn't hold water either, but interesting stuff about time resolution of hearing. His point that the mechanism used by the ears for positional location (time delay) seems to use a different mechanism to normal hearing. I will look into that.
 

The_Lhc

New member
Oct 16, 2008
1,175
1
0
andyjm said:
Vladimir said:
MQA part 1; Why 24 bit 192 kHz audio?
Vlad, great link.  Thanks.  I liked the guy's style.?

Got a few things wrong. "the reason we use 24 bits not 20 is because computers work in powers of 2" Not sure what that is all about.
Binary? Powers of eight? Eight bit bytes, 3 8s are 24, etc etc.
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
0
0
The_Lhc said:
andyjm said:
Vladimir said:
MQA part 1; Why 24 bit 192 kHz audio?
Vlad, great link. Thanks. I liked the guy's style.

Got a few things wrong. "the reason we use 24 bits not 20 is because computers work in powers of 2" Not sure what that is all about.
Binary? Powers of eight? Eight bit bytes, 3 8s are 24, etc etc.
The adoption of 8 bit bytes as a computer word-length would indeed be a sensible explanation - as you rightly point out, 3 x 8 = 24. My original point was that the choice of 24 bits rather than 20 has very little to do with computers working in powers of 2 as suggested by our Dutch HiFi evangelist vlogger.
 

nopiano

Well-known member
On the substantive topic, back in pre-CD days it was often presumed that wider bandwith was better, as it typically led to lower in-band distortion and smoother responses. If you could go higher and lower, then the parts you needed were easier to manage. Only when ultra- and infra-sonic frequencies caused other issues, like wobbling bass cones, did curtailing them seem like a better compromise. Different manufacturers had different preferences. I usually preferred wide-bandwith gear (often American). That makes me instinctively drawn to hi-res recordings, whatever the technical arguments. CDs were never 'perfect sound forever'. I risk an analogy that a 1-litre car may be fast enough, but a 2-litre one is much nicer to drive. It's all about taking things in your stride.

As noted above, many hi-res recording may well be mastered differently. I know I like some hi-res recordings (I only own a few dozen), and I also have many CDs and LPs with great sound. Many sound less good though, and are simply not made as well as the best. The compromise is between an artist/performer we like, and their engineering/recording. If you like Bowie or Adele, you get what you're given, until someone remasters them years later. If you want a Beethoven symphony, you can choose from hundreds, made over decades.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
4
0
ID. said:
Vladimir said:
will you be having that with the matching M-07 power amp (100w pure class a)?

I guess the C-06 is the matching pre
And 1x400W in Class A mono! Holy cow! I thought the insides are impressive, but look at the back. Two power cords, one each for the 9kg trafos. Now that is true dual mono.



Audiophile cable afficionados will probably erect their noses at the fixed factory cords.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts