Sound quality research

[tonky]

Wind up 78? - You're just being a wind up full stop - you'd make a saint swear - stop it - and don't be a silly billy!

wiggy

 

[keeper of the quays]

Wind up 78? - You're just being a wind up full stop - you'd make a saint swear - stop it - and don't be a silly billy!

 

wiggy

Oh gawd! Just had my dad tell me off..I did say I'll try harder...but lhd did start growling before I made my solemn promise to pater! I'll try and hold myself in more? Will that do?

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

Dynamic range

The Dr of CD is already enough to cause permanent deafness at the top end, what more do you think is actually required? The fact that producers choose not to use it is no reason to deny that the format is capable of that sort of range.

The Dr of 24-bit audio, if it could ever actually be reproduced in the home, would give a maximum volume that would actually be fatal. It's a complete waste of time.

Exactly the point I am making. A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range. As can all the other digital formats of sufficient bitrate. It isn't the dynamic range on MP3s that is compressed but the file itself and the the concept of lossy formats is they do not record the quiet bits that wont be able to be heard when they are masked by the loud bits and so reducing the file size - A compromise, but a very good compromise that for most people will be entirely acceptable under normal listening conditions. I wouldn't say 24bit over 16bit has anything to do with maximum volume but more to do with detail and quality within the music. Pushing dynamic range up over 100dB in home hifi equipment is absolute overkill. I would guess the dynamic range of the average 'Gothic Rock' CD is about 3dB. Only classical music with its many silent passages and loud bits requires equipment capable of getting close to 95dB dr (I remember seeing deutch gramophon CDs years ago with warnings on them about possibility of blowing the speakers) But personally if classical music was all there was I wouldn't listen to music at all. Personally can't stand it but that is just me.

 

[TrevC]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

Obvious difference, LOL.

 

[TrevC]

A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

 

[keeper of the quays]

 A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range. 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Trev? Sarcasm does not become you! You know perfectly well that cables make a huge difference! You are pulling the wool over your own eyes! For reason I cannot fathom? I'm thinking insanity? or bloody mindedness? or both?

 

[MajorFubar]

...Except for classical music, recording onto reel to reel analog tape is still the recording medium of choice in recording studios worldwide. Only the final mastering is done digitally at a very high 32bit/196kHz sampling rate.

I'm really not sure where you get that idea from. There might be a minority of artists or studios who use tape to achieve a particular sound, but for certainly all of this century, tracking, mixing and mastering has been accomplished almost universally on PC or Mac workstations, mated to expensive multichannel audio hardware, running ProTools, Logic Pro, or another similar DAW. Prior to that, digital tape machines were used, or direct-to-disc HDD recorders running custom proprietory OS's and software. To find a time when analogue tape was 'still the medium of choice in recording studios worldwide' you'll have to go back to a time when anyone 30 years old was still in nappies, and when anyone under 20 wasn't even born.

 

[MajorFubar]

Doesn't eally matter anyway because the original post was mostly garbage (no offence to the OP, I of course mean the data they quoted for discussion, not the actual quality or merit of their post).

 

[Native_bon]

It will all boil dwn to the limitations of the format and how it was mastered. Even though the test was done about 6yrs ago dnt think music has changed regarding mastering.

If anything it's got worse. Hardware and software are going opposite directions. We have all this brilliant hifi but 95% of music is just compressed noise. The differences in formats are minimal, it's the mastering that counts.

 

[TrevC]

A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Trev? Sarcasm does not become you! You know perfectly well that cables make a huge difference! You are pulling the wool over your own eyes! For reason I cannot fathom? I'm thinking insanity? or bloody mindedness? or both?

Of course cables make a difference.

 

[tonky]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

Obvious difference, LOL.

Ok then - your thoughts?

 

[keeper of the quays]

 A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range. 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Trev? Sarcasm does not become you! You know perfectly well that cables make a huge difference! You are pulling the wool over your own eyes! For reason I cannot fathom? I'm thinking insanity? or bloody mindedness? or both?

Of course cables make a difference.

Yes trev they do..now I'll make a nice cup of tea, and a slice of Victoria sponge cake trev? You want the big bit or small bit? Yes..its homemade..are you sure you want three sugars in your tea trev? Turned out nice again don't you think? I think visiting time is over soon mate..ill come back tomorrow if ok..I'll bring a jig saw puzzle! All the best trev..stay positive..bye

 

[The_Lhc]

I wouldn't say 24bit over 16bit has anything to do with maximum volume but more to do with detail and quality within the music.

I'm afraid that simply isn't the case, a 16-bit 44kHz recording will perfectly capture every signal up to 22.05kHz *perfectly* with a DR up to about 90db. That's mathematical fact, all 24-bit audio will do is increase the dynamic range, nothing else. All increasing the sample rate to 96kHz will do is increase the maximum frequency that can be recorded to 48khz, so your cat might notice but you certainly won't. The music recorded will not be recorded in any more detail or quality.

The point is the improvement often heard in hi-res music would be heard just as well if the same dynamic range improvement was applied to the 16-bit recording.

 

[TrevC]

A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Trev? Sarcasm does not become you! You know perfectly well that cables make a huge difference! You are pulling the wool over your own eyes! For reason I cannot fathom? I'm thinking insanity? or bloody mindedness? or both?

Of course cables make a difference.

Yes trev they do..now I'll make a nice cup of tea, and a slice of Victoria sponge cake trev? You want the big bit or small bit? Yes..its homemade..are you sure you want three sugars in your tea trev? Turned out nice again don't you think? I think visiting time is over soon mate..ill come back tomorrow if ok..I'll bring a jig saw puzzle! All the best trev..stay positive..bye

I never have sugar in tea.

 

[TrevC]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

Obvious difference, LOL.

Ok then - your thoughts?

Any difference might just be detectable on certain material, but that doesn't amount to anything like an obvious diference.

 

[keeper of the quays]

 A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range. 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Trev? Sarcasm does not become you! You know perfectly well that cables make a huge difference! You are pulling the wool over your own eyes! For reason I cannot fathom? I'm thinking insanity? or bloody mindedness? or both?

Of course cables make a difference.

Yes trev they do..now I'll make a nice cup of tea, and a slice of Victoria sponge cake trev? You want the big bit or small bit? Yes..its homemade..are you sure you want three sugars in your tea trev? Turned out nice again don't you think? I think visiting time is over soon mate..ill come back tomorrow if ok..I'll bring a jig saw puzzle! All the best trev..stay positive..bye

I never have sugar in tea. 

oops..many apologies! When I visit tomorrow I won't make that blunder again! Fancy lemon drizzle cake? or treacle tart? I have a nice big jigsaw for you mate..its a batman themed one..gotham city by night! See you tomoz...

 

[lindsayt]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

There's a big difference between casette tapes (especially on a typical consumer cassette deck) and reel to reel (especially on a professional tape machine).

Cassette: 1 & 7/8 inch per second, 4 tracks on 1/8" wide tape.

Reel to reel. Various formats, including 15 inches per second, 2 tracks on 1/4" wide tape. That's 32 times the tape area passing under the heads each second.

The very clear sonic limitations of compact cassette do not in any way extrapolate onto reel to reel.

Some tape formulations were terrible for not lasting long without shedding. Other tape formulations are fine.

The big downside to reel to reel is the cost of the tapes, both blank and pre-recorded.

Bass is not an issue on reel to reel. Any defects in this area will be swamped by sonic compromises in your speakers and room.

Hiss is not an issue on reel to reel. It's inaudible - unless you put your ears right up against your tweeters with the volume right up in the between track silence. I get more hiss from my solid state amps through my (highly efficient) speakers than I do from reel to reel.

The best analogy I can come up with is that reel to reel is like a large format bellows camera, whilst CD is like a Canon digital camera.

To me it's a bit of a joke that just because no one understands how ADC's and DAC's work on a nuts and bolts layman's terms level that CD is seen as technically beyond reproach. CD sounds flawed to me so therefore I'm keeping an open mind that in certain important technical respects it is flawed.

The big problem with CD for me is that older releases relied on the poor ADC technology of the 1980's. Whilst more modern releases almost universally have excessive amounts of compression.

In my house the pecking order for best sound to worst is:

Reel to reel

Vinyl 12" singles

Vinyl lp

CD

In a way this is fair enough because my average cost per CD is lower than my average cost per vinyl record which is much much lower than my average cost per tape. Collecting reel to reel tapes will send you bankrupt.

 

[tonky]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

Obvious difference, LOL.

Ok then - your thoughts?

Any difference might just be detectable on certain material, but that doesn't amount to anything like an obvious diference.

No worries - I never try to preach to the unconvertable - LOL . My ears aren't golden - but they are large!

tonky

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I wouldn't say 24bit over 16bit has anything to do with maximum volume but more to do with detail and quality within the music.

I'm afraid that simply isn't the case, a 16-bit 44kHz recording will perfectly capture every signal up to 22.05kHz *perfectly* with a DR up to about 90db. That's mathematical fact, all 24-bit audio will do is increase the dynamic range, nothing else. All increasing the sample rate to 96kHz will do is increase the maximum frequency that can be recorded to 48khz, so your cat might notice but you certainly won't. The music recorded will not be recorded in any more detail or quality.

The point is the improvement often heard in hi-res music would be heard just as well if the same dynamic range improvement was applied to the 16-bit recording.

I am not convinced you are right! Do you know what sampling rate means? To put it in laymens language it is the number of times a second the DAC takes a stab at it and it all joins together. So we get 44100 stabs at it a second or 48000stabs at it a second or 88000stabs at it a second and on an upwards to 196000stabs at it a second. I can't understand how that will entend the frequency responce beyond 22kHz. I know the human brain cannot notice the gaps between 44100 stabs a second and it might seem that to go beyond that is pointless but higher sampling rates do create a more seemless and cystaline sound. I cannot honestly tell the difference between 44100 and 48000 but I have heard same music at 96000 and could hear a difference even though I didnt feel it was at all nessasary. My DAC can only do 44.1 and 48.0 and that is ok with me. My laptop media player of choice is AIMP music player and under settings it has an option to output at 24bit 48kHz or 16bit 44.1kHz. I choose output at 24bit 48kHz because switching between the two brings a better sound with 24bit and it isn't high frequencies that I cant hear anyway but a sound with greater depth and insight and more solidity. What would be the point of extending frequency responce beyond the range of hearing? It would let through supersonic rubbish that would then be amplified. If 16bit 44.1 CD quality is as good as it needs to be why isn't that the standard for studio recording and all other digital formats? Why are the bit depths and sampling rates being pushed up and up if it is not required? Just makes the bitrate and file sizes enormous and if done for no good reason why do it? I am not accusing of you definately of being wrong. I just can't work out how you can be right. What is the meaning of Bit Depth? I don't know for sure what that means! I don't think it is to do with dynamic range increase. Most music stays within the VU meter range of -20dB to +3 dB for most of the time. That tells me most music stays within a dynamic range of 23dB for most of the time yet I can hear difference between 16bit and 24bit when switching back and forth. Am I once again deluded?

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

A CD player will have a dynamic range capability of about 95 to 100dB. 320kbps can achieve same dynamic range.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-2

Doesn't it depend on whether you use a Gotham cable or not?

Well of course it does Trev It makes all the difference. My prized magic cables. You are stirring!!

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

Reel to Reel analogue has not been the recording studio choice since mid 80s? I think you are wrong. In mid 80s most studio sound engineers were only just starting to get to grips with digital recording and it did not get off to a very good start. The expected change to digital recording in the 80s didn't happen to any great extent or with very much enthusiasm. I don't know exactly how much music is still studio recorded onto analog tape in this century. Just because analog is still the recording medium of choice doesn't mean people get their choice. It would still be the medium of choice if it is allowed to be. But I can't say for sure you are wrong. It has been a few years and I have been known to talk out of my arse occasionally although very very rarely.

 

[The_Lhc]

I wouldn't say 24bit over 16bit has anything to do with maximum volume but more to do with detail and quality within the music.

I'm afraid that simply isn't the case, a 16-bit 44kHz recording will perfectly capture every signal up to 22.05kHz *perfectly* with a DR up to about 90db. That's mathematical fact, all 24-bit audio will do is increase the dynamic range, nothing else. All increasing the sample rate to 96kHz will do is increase the maximum frequency that can be recorded to 48khz, so your cat might notice but you certainly won't. The music recorded will not be recorded in any more detail or quality.

The point is the improvement often heard in hi-res music would be heard just as well if the same dynamic range improvement was applied to the 16-bit recording.

I am not convinced you are right! Do you know what sampling rate means?

Yes, I do, you clearly don't however.

Am I once again deluded?

I'm afraid so, please Google the subject to learn how digital sampling actually works. I'd do it myself but I'm expecting to be banned any minute now and I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to post any suitable links once I'd found them.

 

[BigH]

I can hear difference between 16bit and 24bit when switching back and forth. Am I once again deluded?

How are you comparing 16 to 24 bit, how was it converted, is the same mastering etc? If you convert to 24bit to 16bit correctly I doubt you will hear any difference. Some 24 and 16 samples are different.

 

[TrevC]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

There's a big difference between casette tapes (especially on a typical consumer cassette deck) and reel to reel (especially on a professional tape machine).

Cassette: 1 & 7/8 inch per second, 4 tracks on 1/8" wide tape.

Reel to reel. Various formats, including 15 inches per second, 2 tracks on 1/4" wide tape. That's 32 times the tape area passing under the heads each second.

The very clear sonic limitations of compact cassette do not in any way extrapolate onto reel to reel.

Some tape formulations were terrible for not lasting long without shedding. Other tape formulations are fine.

The big downside to reel to reel is the cost of the tapes, both blank and pre-recorded.

Bass is not an issue on reel to reel. Any defects in this area will be swamped by sonic compromises in your speakers and room.

Hiss is not an issue on reel to reel. It's inaudible - unless you put your ears right up against your tweeters with the volume right up in the between track silence. I get more hiss from my solid state amps through my (highly efficient) speakers than I do from reel to reel.

The best analogy I can come up with is that reel to reel is like a large format bellows camera, whilst CD is like a Canon digital camera.

To me it's a bit of a joke that just because no one understands how ADC's and DAC's work on a nuts and bolts layman's terms level that CD is seen as technically beyond reproach. CD sounds flawed to me so therefore I'm keeping an open mind that in certain important technical respects it is flawed.

The big problem with CD for me is that older releases relied on the poor ADC technology of the 1980's. Whilst more modern releases almost universally have excessive amounts of compression.

In my house the pecking order for best sound to worst is:

Reel to reel

Vinyl 12" singles

Vinyl lp

CD

In a way this is fair enough because my average cost per CD is lower than my average cost per vinyl record which is much much lower than my average cost per tape. Collecting reel to reel tapes will send you bankrupt.

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

 

[BigH]

The best analogy I can come up with is that reel to reel is like a large format bellows camera, whilst CD is like a Canon digital camera.

To me it's a bit of a joke that just because no one understands how ADC's and DAC's work on a nuts and bolts layman's terms level that CD is seen as technically beyond reproach. CD sounds flawed to me so therefore I'm keeping an open mind that in certain important technical respects it is flawed.

The big problem with CD for me is that older releases relied on the poor ADC technology of the 1980's. Whilst more modern releases almost universally have excessive amounts of compression.

In my house the pecking order for best sound to worst is:

Reel to reel

Vinyl 12" singles

Vinyl lp

CD

In a way this is fair enough because my average cost per CD is lower than my average cost per vinyl record which is much much lower than my average cost per tape. Collecting reel to reel tapes will send you bankrupt.

Actually the latest Canon DSLR camers are pretty close to large format cameras so your comparison is probably out of date.

What cd player do you use?