| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Who'd a thought?
I've had a couple of "epiphanies" audio-wise this year and I must say that
they have really shook my belief in my understanding of high-end audio to the core. The first revelation came when I found that all modern competently designed amplifiers, when matched exactly for level and operated within their design parameters, sound pretty much alike. When a room full of audiophiles cannot consistently, correctly identify the differences between a highly touted high-end US$10,000 power amplifier and a US$200 amplifier, it makes one want to re-examine his priorities. It's sobering to think that the amplifier section of a mid-fi 240 Watt/channel receiver from Panasonic or Sony sounds essentially the same as a huge 240 Watt/channel pair of monoblocs from Mark Levinson costing 50 times the price of the receiver are comparable in any way shape or form. I'm not saying that the Levinson isn't better. It is, its just that under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test, it didn't sound enough significantly better to allow the listening panel to correctly identify which was playing every time. The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! After a hiatus of several decades, I decided to get back into recording. In a "former life" I gad been a fairly successful part-time professional location recording engineer. I was the paid archivist/broadcast recording engineer for several large symphony orchestras and I did a lot of work for NPR recording all of their "Jazz Alive" series sessions recorded in the San Francisco Bay Area jazz scene. But, I got tired of lugging huge 1/2-Track 10.5" reel-to-reel tape recorders around, spending hours aligning them and making sure that they were biased properly before each session, not to mention lugging a huge, expensive (and not all that good) recording desk around, plus the price of decent microphones was astronomical, etc., etc. I gave it up. Recently I became aware that all of that had changed. New mixers were small, cheap, and excellent sounding. Reel-to-reel analog tape had given way to portable laptop computers and their hard-drives. Over the last few months, I've bought myself a nice, small mixer with phantom power for four microphones, an Apogee Duet Firewire D/A converter for my laptop capable of 24-bit/96 Khz recording, 7 nice pro condenser microphones including a single point stereo mike, all with switchable patterns, mike stands, mike cables etc. I made arrangements to start recording the Stanford University Jazz Orchestra and their Symphonic Wind Ensemble in rehearsal and concerts. The Rehearsals don't yield much that's worth listening to musically, but sonically they're great simply because they aren't important! Rehearsals allow me to record the same phrases of a piece over and over again both in 16-bit/44.1KHz and in 24-bit/96 Khz audio. I can also try other combinations such as 16 and 24 bit at 48 KHz and 96 Khz. And I did, I tried them all using programs called "Audacity" and Apogee "Maestro" to control the A/D and to lay down the tracks. I get great-sounding recordings. Using no compression or limiting, I get recordings that everybody agrees are first rate. Recently, I bought a Samson Zoom H-2 solid-state hand-held recorder and started trying it at different sampling rates and bit depths as well. It too yields excellent sounding recordings. The problem is, that nobody can tell the difference between any of the sampling rates and bit depths. I put together a WAV file of snippets recorded at various sampling rates and bit depths, and played it back for some friends recently directly from my hard drive and through my Apogee Duet A/D-D/A converter to my Stereo system. Each "cut" was isolated from the next by 2 seconds of silence and sometimes I changed the sample rate, and sometimes I didn't. Even I don't remember the sequence. The bottom line is nobody could tell the 24-bit 44.1 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz, and nobody could tell the 24-bit 96 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz samples either. They all sounded the same. very good, but no single bit depth or sampling frequency sounding any better, or indeed, any different than any other. All the jazz selections were recorded using the same microphone setup (the Avantone CK-40 stereo mike and a Behringer C-2 "lipstick" mike on the grand piano) and the Symphonic Winds were recorded with spaced Behringer B-2 dual-diaphragm omnis. The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. Early CD's failings obviously had more to do with the execution of early PCM recording/playback equipoment and methodology than it did with the format. No wonder the high-resolution disc formats failed in the marketplace. Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Jun 18, 11:55*pm, Sonnova wrote:
The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. When the SONY PCM D1 came out I gradually started experimenting with 96Khz/24-bit vs. red book (Schoeps MK4/MK2SSchoeps active cablesSonosax lemosax (with a 5-pin binder)SONY PCM D1. My first comparisons did not impress me that there was a difference even when I did open 1:1 comparisons knowing what kind of recording I was playing. I continued to tape in all combinations: red book; 48/16; 96/16; 44.1/24; 48/24, 96/24. It took me a year and dozens of recordings to hear the improvement in 96/24 over red book. I can now hear immediately what’s missing in a red book recording – it’s not placebo or wishful thinking: this is a process with a long learning curve. The high rez recordings have richer detail, slightly warmer sound, pin point sound-staging and once you get used to that sound you cannot go back to red book. Bottom line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don’t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I am aware that “Stereophile”’s JA has been preaching a more elaborate version of this “bottom line”; it’s only a coincidence that I am on the same side of this particular issue as JA, no disrespect intended – I just happened to reach the same conclusions independently. However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Simonel |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote:
Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording do have one advantage . . . .hi rez  They may not sound better but they do catch more detail. As with all hi end hifi, the difference is usually subtle. Another thing I believe is that a studio recording is bound to exploit a high rez format's capability much more than a live recording ever will. In the studio, all sound is controlled, especially the room's sound. A saxophone is setup in the room, a mic best suited to record it is used, etc. This goes for each and every instrument in the recording. Each instrument is given 1st class acoustic treatment to get the best out of it. And, each instrument can even be recorded separately, completely isolating its sound from all the other instruments in the composition. The resulting final recording would be a blend of everything having had their sound captured in the best possible way. With a live recording its all about mic position, working the "room" acoustics, in this case the stage, as best as possible, and hope for the best for anything else. If a live recording sounds good it is due to more of an ensemble effort, not anything that uniquely brings out the best of each instrument, be it the singer's voice, the violin or drum section. My 2 cents CD |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:53:19 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ): On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording do have one advantage . . . .hi rez Well yes, but that's not really my point. If competently recorded 16-bit, 44.1 KHz ALREADY perfectly captures everything that the microphones pick-up, then adding more resolution is like transferring 8mm home movies to high-definition DVD. I.E, no matter what the resolution of the recording device, its not going to resolve more than what's there already. In sound recording its the microphones and mixer that's the limiting factors and you're never going to get more music than what's available at the output of the mixer (or mic preamps) no matter what the bit depth or the sample rate. They may not sound better but they do catch more detail. As with all hi end hifi, the difference is usually subtle. Another thing I believe is that a studio recording is bound to exploit a high rez format's capability much more than a live recording ever will. In the studio, all sound is controlled, especially the room's sound. A saxophone is setup in the room, a mic best suited to record it is used, etc. This goes for each and every instrument in the recording. Each instrument is given 1st class acoustic treatment to get the best out of it. And, each instrument can even be recorded separately, completely isolating its sound from all the other instruments in the composition. The resulting final recording would be a blend of everything having had their sound captured in the best possible way. The problem with studio recordings is that for the most part, they sound like what they a studio recordings. Sure they may have more "inner detail" than a live recording, but with each instrument isolated from the others, or even, as you say, recorded separately, one thing you can never call such a recording is "stereo". You cannot pan-pot instruments to their correct position in the ensemble and get any sense of their relationship to the rest of the ensemble, or of the space they are occupying. What you get is multi-channel mono and I'm also afraid that instruments miked up-close simply do not SOUND the same as instruments miked "en ensemble". A lot of this inner detail of which you speak wasn't intended by the composer to be heard by the audience, anyway, and as such, might be too much detail. When I record these two bands in rehearsal, They are rehearsing in a real rehearsal hall. These halls are, essentially, studios. They have double doors with an "air lock" between them, the walls are treated and the ceilings have huge hanging, curved baffles. Outside the room, you hear essentially nothing. But I still use the same microphone techniques as I do for performance in the big auditorium and only spot where I think its absolutely necessary (such as the piano) Even so, the overall microphones are a stereo pair and the sense of the piano's place in the room is maintained. With a live recording its all about mic position, working the "room" acoustics, in this case the stage, as best as possible, and hope for the best for anything else. If a live recording sounds good it is due to more of an ensemble effort, not anything that uniquely brings out the best of each instrument, be it the singer's voice, the violin or drum section. But then again, the audience doesn't have benefit of the spot-lighting that one can do when recording, so I'm not sure that the best recordings are made the way you describe. To my mind, recording is about bringing realism into the listening room and that means either transporting the listener to the hall where the performance took place (difficult to impossible with two channels) or bringing the performance to the listener in his room (doable with two channels). It's a matter of taste, I guess, but for the most part, I prefer simple, stereo miking to studio tricks with isolation baffles, one microphone per instrument, and instruments recorded separately and in isolation. To me that's not stereo recording and its not real. (so much for my two cents) G! My 2 cents CD |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:51:36 -0700, Simonel wrote
(in article ): On Jun 18, 11:55*pm, Sonnova wrote: The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. When the SONY PCM D1 came out I gradually started experimenting with 96Khz/24-bit vs. red book (Schoeps MK4/MK2SSchoeps active cablesSonosax lemosax (with a 5-pin binder)SONY PCM D1. My first comparisons did not impress me that there was a difference even when I did open 1:1 comparisons knowing what kind of recording I was playing. I continued to tape in all combinations: red book; 48/16; 96/16; 44.1/24; 48/24, 96/24. It took me a year and dozens of recordings to hear the improvement in 96/24 over red book. I can now hear immediately what’s missing in a red book recording – it’s not placebo or wishful thinking: this is a process with a long learning curve. The high rez recordings have richer detail, slightly warmer sound, pin point sound-staging and once you get used to that sound you cannot go back to red book. Bottom line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don’t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I am aware that “Stereophile”’s JA has been preaching a more elaborate version of this “bottom line”; it’s only a coincidence that I am on the same side of this particular issue as JA, no disrespect intended – I just happened to reach the same conclusions independently. However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Simonel I'm contemplating your last sentence and wondering what it bespeaks. Converting a hi-rez recording to Redbook yields a recording that is indistinguishable from it's high-rez master? This is saying that well recorded Redbook is good enough that nothing from the hi-rez recording was lost. Does this also mean that if this same software had been used to CAPTURE the original recording in 16/44.1 in the first place, that it would be as good as the recording made in hi-rez? It seems as if that's what you are saying and if so, you've just come to the same conclusion as I have: 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate resolution for music. Or am I missing something? |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Sonnova wrote:
I've had a couple of "epiphanies" audio-wise this year and I must say that they have really shook my belief in my understanding of high-end audio to the core. The first revelation came when I found that all modern competently designed amplifiers, when matched exactly for level and operated within their design parameters, sound pretty much alike. When a room full of audiophiles cannot consistently, correctly identify the differences between a highly touted high-end US$10,000 power amplifier and a US$200 amplifier, it makes one want to re-examine his priorities. It is, its just that under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test, it didn't sound enough significantly better to allow the listening panel to correctly identify which was playing every time. The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! Recently, I bought a Samson Zoom H-2 solid-state hand-held recorder and started trying it at different sampling rates and bit depths as well. It too yields excellent sounding recordings. The problem is, that nobody can tell the difference between any of the sampling rates and bit depths. The bottom line is nobody could tell the 24-bit 44.1 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz, and nobody could tell the 24-bit 96 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz samples either. They all sounded the same. very good, but no single bit depth or sampling frequency sounding any better, or indeed, any different than any other. The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. Early CD's failings obviously had more to do with the execution of early PCM recording/playback equipoment and methodology than it did with the format. No wonder the high-resolution disc formats failed in the marketplace. Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:44:32 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: I've had a couple of "epiphanies" audio-wise this year and I must say that they have really shook my belief in my understanding of high-end audio to the core. The first revelation came when I found that all modern competently designed amplifiers, when matched exactly for level and operated within their design parameters, sound pretty much alike. When a room full of audiophiles cannot consistently, correctly identify the differences between a highly touted high-end US$10,000 power amplifier and a US$200 amplifier, it makes one want to re-examine his priorities. It is, its just that under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test, it didn't sound enough significantly better to allow the listening panel to correctly identify which was playing every time. The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! Recently, I bought a Samson Zoom H-2 solid-state hand-held recorder and started trying it at different sampling rates and bit depths as well. It too yields excellent sounding recordings. The problem is, that nobody can tell the difference between any of the sampling rates and bit depths. The bottom line is nobody could tell the 24-bit 44.1 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz, and nobody could tell the 24-bit 96 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz samples either. They all sounded the same. very good, but no single bit depth or sampling frequency sounding any better, or indeed, any different than any other. The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. Early CD's failings obviously had more to do with the execution of early PCM recording/playback equipoment and methodology than it did with the format. No wonder the high-resolution disc formats failed in the marketplace. Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. 20 somethings to 60 somethings, but I don't see that its all that important. I'm 63 and I can still hear 12 KHz and I'm not "hard of hearing" over the rest of the range. Age attenuates high frequency response, but it doesn't necessarily affect one's ability to differentiate sound quality. Gordon Holt is a good friend of mine and he's almost 80, yet he can listen to a piece of gear or a recording and immediately tell you what's wrong with it and he's almost always right. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". I would say that hearing aids are much more prevalent for men in their late seventies and 80's than it is among those in their 50's. Of course it depends a lot on how you treated your ears when young. Guys who listened to a lot of loud rock in their youth generally have worse hearing than those who did not. I never liked popular music and have never subjected my ears to that kind kind of abuse (I've never attended a live rock concert - EVER) and neither have I ever worked in a high -noise environment, so my ears are probably better than many. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Simonel wrote:
line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Simonel wrote: line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. That was my conclusion as well. If you can convert a hi-rez recording to RedBook without any loss of information, then two things are obviously true: 1) If you recorded the performance at 16/44.1 directly from the same microphone feed as was used to record the hi-rez version, you would get the same result as down-sampling the hi-rez recording. 2) If there is no difference between the hi-rez master and a Redbook CD made from that hi-rez master, then the hi-rez recording is overkill. It stands to reason that this is so because if nothing audible was lost its because there's no more musical information on the hi-rez master than there is on the Redbook CD. It has to be that way. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Simonel" wrote in message
On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. When the SONY PCM D1 came out I gradually started experimenting with 96Khz/24-bit vs. red book (Schoeps MK4/MK2SSchoeps active cablesSonosax lemosax (with a 5-pin binder)SONY PCM D1. My first comparisons did not impress me that there was a difference even when I did open 1:1 comparisons knowing what kind of recording I was playing. I continued to tape in all combinations: red book; 48/16; 96/16; 44.1/24; 48/24, 96/24. I've been regularly (weekly or more often) recording in various formats for about 7 years. I own all kinds of equipment that is capable of recording in various formats up to 24/192. This includes high end professional recording interfaces such as the LynxTwo. It took me a year and dozens of recordings to hear the improvement in 96/24 over red book. I can now hear immediately what’s missing in a red book recording – it’s not placebo or wishful thinking: this is a process with a long learning curve. The high rez recordings have richer detail, slightly warmer sound, pin point sound-staging and once you get used to that sound you cannot go back to red book. Bottom line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. Actually, you can get the whole picture with ABX when you spend as much time as you need with it. There's a myth that has been widely circulated on audio forums, audio magazines, and audio conferences, and that myth is the idea that ABX and other blind listening protocols have to involve short listening tests. There's a very well-known reason why so-called high resolution recording provides so few practical advantages, and that is the fact that the recording medium, even red book CD format, is not the weakest link. The weakest links in practical recording are the limited dynamic range of the places where recordings are made, and where they are listened to. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
"Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". Today, I'm 61. While the sensitivity of my hearing isn't what it was, I can still hear well enough at reasonble listening levels for comparing and auditioning, 85-95 dB so that people tell me that the work I do sounds good. But do the math - The ABX partners did the following definitive testing related to Red Book CD players which were published back in 1986: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) The actual listening tests were done in 1985 in order to meet the publication date. It was before I turned 39. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:44:32 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: I've had a couple of "epiphanies" audio-wise this year and I must say that they have really shook my belief in my understanding of high-end audio to the core. The first revelation came when I found that all modern competently designed amplifiers, when matched exactly for level and operated within their design parameters, sound pretty much alike. When a room full of audiophiles cannot consistently, correctly identify the differences between a highly touted high-end US$10,000 power amplifier and a US$200 amplifier, it makes one want to re-examine his priorities. It is, its just that under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test, it didn't sound enough significantly better to allow the listening panel to correctly identify which was playing every time. The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! Recently, I bought a Samson Zoom H-2 solid-state hand-held recorder and started trying it at different sampling rates and bit depths as well. It too yields excellent sounding recordings. The problem is, that nobody can tell the difference between any of the sampling rates and bit depths. The bottom line is nobody could tell the 24-bit 44.1 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz, and nobody could tell the 24-bit 96 KHz from the 16-bit 44.1 KHz samples either. They all sounded the same. very good, but no single bit depth or sampling frequency sounding any better, or indeed, any different than any other. The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. Early CD's failings obviously had more to do with the execution of early PCM recording/playback equipoment and methodology than it did with the format. No wonder the high-resolution disc formats failed in the marketplace. Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. 20 somethings to 60 somethings, but I don't see that its all that important. I'm 63 and I can still hear 12 KHz and I'm not "hard of hearing" over the rest of the range. Age attenuates high frequency response, but it doesn't necessarily affect one's ability to differentiate sound quality. Gordon Holt is a good friend of mine and he's almost 80, yet he can listen to a piece of gear or a recording and immediately tell you what's wrong with it and he's almost always right. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". I would say that hearing aids are much more prevalent for men in their late seventies and 80's than it is among those in their 50's. Of course it depends a lot on how you treated your ears when young. Guys who listened to a lot of loud rock in their youth generally have worse hearing than those who did not. I never liked popular music and have never subjected my ears to that kind kind of abuse (I've never attended a live rock concert - EVER) and neither have I ever worked in a high -noise environment, so my ears are probably better than many. Age-related hearing loss can and usually does takes place regardless of any noise exposure or 'abuse'. At 63 even though you might be able to see the bottom line of an eye chart, you're kidding yourself in believing your vision is anywhere near as good as it was in your youth. An eyeglass prescription can change every two years as can one's hearing acuity. I for one am not ready to believe thar a 'jury' composed of (m)any 60 year olds are suitable to judge subtle variances in amplifier sound, if indeed there is any to be heard (and even if their names happen to be JGH or HP or Superman). http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2007-mchi/4220.html I have to look for a magnifying glass to read some of the small print, (track numbers, etc.) on CD booklets even when using up to date, good corrective lenses and in bright light. Even if I were to indulge in the expense of hearing aids, I still wouldn't be able to hear anywhere near as well as I did in my youth. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Sonnova writes:
Does this also mean that if this same software had been used to CAPTURE the original recording in 16/44.1 in the first place, that it would be as good as the recording made in hi-rez? I think there's an argument to be made for recording in 24-bit even if you're aiming for a 16-bit result, since it gives you more headroom -- you can afford to record at a lower level, then adjust the gain during mastering so the peaks are where you want them, and still make good use of all 16 bits. -- Adam Sampson http://offog.org/ |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Sonnova wrote:
As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! All I can say is: how old are you and how old were your testers? I'm 63 and can't hear to 24 kHZ like I could when I was 19. I'd bet that if you get real audiophiles who are 17 - 20 years old and never been ear-blasted, they might, and I emphasize might, actually hear a difference. The BIG difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is headroom when recording things like the Mahler 2nd or 8th Symphonies. With 16 bit you'd better have the level set absolutely perfectly. Doug McDonald |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:59:31 -0700, Adam Sampson wrote
(in article ): Sonnova writes: Does this also mean that if this same software had been used to CAPTURE the original recording in 16/44.1 in the first place, that it would be as good as the recording made in hi-rez? I think there's an argument to be made for recording in 24-bit even if you're aiming for a 16-bit result, since it gives you more headroom -- you can afford to record at a lower level, then adjust the gain during mastering so the peaks are where you want them, and still make good use of all 16 bits. I won't argue that point! That 16-bit brick wall can be a real problem when trying to optimize a wide-dynamic range live recording for CD without signal processing. I usually record in 32-bit floating at 44.1 KHz for that very reason. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Simonel" wrote in message On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: The surprise end result is that those who say that 16-bit/44.1 KHz is more than adequate for music seem to be correct. When the SONY PCM D1 came out I gradually started experimenting with 96Khz/24-bit vs. red book (Schoeps MK4/MK2SSchoeps active cablesSonosax lemosax (with a 5-pin binder)SONY PCM D1. My first comparisons did not impress me that there was a difference even when I did open 1:1 comparisons knowing what kind of recording I was playing. I continued to tape in all combinations: red book; 48/16; 96/16; 44.1/24; 48/24, 96/24. I've been regularly (weekly or more often) recording in various formats for about 7 years. I own all kinds of equipment that is capable of recording in various formats up to 24/192. This includes high end professional recording interfaces such as the LynxTwo. It took me a year and dozens of recordings to hear the improvement in 96/24 over red book. I can now hear immediately what’s missing in a red book recording – it’s not placebo or wishful thinking: this is a process with a long learning curve. The high rez recordings have richer detail, slightly warmer sound, pin point sound-staging and once you get used to that sound you cannot go back to red book. Bottom line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. Actually, you can get the whole picture with ABX when you spend as much time as you need with it. There's a myth that has been widely circulated on audio forums, audio magazines, and audio conferences, and that myth is the idea that ABX and other blind listening protocols have to involve short listening tests. There's a very well-known reason why so-called high resolution recording provides so few practical advantages, and that is the fact that the recording medium, even red book CD format, is not the weakest link. The weakest links in practical recording are the limited dynamic range of the places where recordings are made, and where they are listened to. I would expand that list to include the microphones. Even the very best aren't perfect and they are, after all, transducers. Modern condenser mikes are very good, don't get me wrong, even relatively inexpensive ones. But they aren't as good as the recording medium, even if that medium is 16/44.1. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
|
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:45:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". Today, I'm 61. While the sensitivity of my hearing isn't what it was, I can still hear well enough at reasonble listening levels for comparing and auditioning, 85-95 dB so that people tell me that the work I do sounds good. Ditto and I'm 63. But do the math - The ABX partners did the following definitive testing related to Red Book CD players which were published back in 1986: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) The actual listening tests were done in 1985 in order to meet the publication date. It was before I turned 39. It was also when CD players were VERY primitive. They have improved considerably since then as have the recordings. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Jun 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
I'd bet that if you get real audiophiles who are 17 - 20 years old and never been ear-blasted, they might, and I emphasize might, actually hear a difference. Then recruit a few and run the experiment. I think you'll be disappointed. After all, it's not like Sonnova's the only guy to ever try this. The BIG difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is headroom when recording things like the Mahler 2nd or 8th Symphonies. With 16 bit you'd better have the level set absolutely perfectly. True, but not the point of contention here. The question on the table is: Once you've made that 24-bit recording, can you down-convert it to 16 bits without audible loss? All available evidence suggests that you can. bob bob |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Simonel wrote: line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. One point that has not been brought up yet is that the really BIG bottlenecks in audio reproduction is not in the type of storage technology or amplifiers, but microphones, speakers, and listening room acoustics. The problems with the latter three dwarf the problems of the former two by HUGE magnitude. It makes all the hot air "debate" over storage technologies and amplifiers very silly indeed. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". Today, I'm 61. While the sensitivity of my hearing isn't what it was, I can still hear well enough at reasonble listening levels for comparing and auditioning, 85-95 dB so that people tell me that the work I do sounds good. Im 72 and by my mere age alone I know better than to offer comments on the sound of amplifier A vs. amplifier B, or to take seriously reviews by persons old enough to be using Centrum Silver ("Specially formulated multivitamin/multimineral supplement for adults 50+"). But do the math - The ABX partners did the following definitive testing related to Red Book CD players which were published back in 1986: I do the math nearly every day and I thank my lucky stars. Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) The actual listening tests were done in 1985 in order to meet the publication date. It was before I turned 39. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:55:09 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jun 20, 6:00*pm, wrote: I'd bet that if you get real audiophiles who are 17 - 20 years old and never been ear-blasted, they might, and I emphasize might, actually hear a difference. Then recruit a few and run the experiment. I think you'll be disappointed. After all, it's not like Sonnova's the only guy to ever try this. The BIG difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is headroom when recording things like the Mahler 2nd or 8th Symphonies. With 16 bit you'd better have the level set absolutely perfectly. True, but not the point of contention here. The question on the table is: Once you've made that 24-bit recording, can you down-convert it to 16 bits without audible loss? All available evidence suggests that you can. Which means that 16/44.1 is adequate for music and that 24-Bit and higher sample rates are more-or-less redundant. While the higher-rez formats are capable of capturing more information, 16/44.1 already captures all of the information that the microphones are picking-up. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): There's a very well-known reason why so-called high resolution recording provides so few practical advantages, and that is the fact that the recording medium, even red book CD format, is not the weakest link. The weakest links in practical recording are the limited dynamic range of the places where recordings are made, and where they are listened to. I would expand that list to include the microphones. Even the very best aren't perfect and they are, after all, transducers. However, microphones have lower distortion and can have flatter frequency response than speakers. Modern condenser mikes are very good, don't get me wrong, even relatively inexpensive ones. But they aren't as good as the recording medium, even if that medium is 16/44.1. A good modern microphone will have low distortion up to 125-140 dB SPL. The residual noise will be equivalent to from 8 to 20 dB. Many microphones have more dynamic range than a Redbook CD if an appropriate acoustical source and recording space could be found. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:45:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". Today, I'm 61. While the sensitivity of my hearing isn't what it was, I can still hear well enough at reasonble listening levels for comparing and auditioning, 85-95 dB so that people tell me that the work I do sounds good. Ditto and I'm 63. But do the math - The ABX partners did the following definitive testing related to Red Book CD players which were published back in 1986: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) The actual listening tests were done in 1985 in order to meet the publication date. It was before I turned 39. It was also when CD players were VERY primitive. They have improved considerably since then as have the recordings. Most of the technological improvements since 1985 relate to reducing the cost of production. The first Sony player's most significant flaw was its expensive but flawed analog reconstruction filters. Sony's next generation players oversampled and used digital filtering. Philips first generation players used digital filters. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:16:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): There's a very well-known reason why so-called high resolution recording provides so few practical advantages, and that is the fact that the recording medium, even red book CD format, is not the weakest link. The weakest links in practical recording are the limited dynamic range of the places where recordings are made, and where they are listened to. I would expand that list to include the microphones. Even the very best aren't perfect and they are, after all, transducers. However, microphones have lower distortion and can have flatter frequency response than speakers. No argument there. Modern condenser mikes are very good, don't get me wrong, even relatively inexpensive ones. But they aren't as good as the recording medium, even if that medium is 16/44.1. A good modern microphone will have low distortion up to 125-140 dB SPL. The residual noise will be equivalent to from 8 to 20 dB. Many microphones have more dynamic range than a Redbook CD if an appropriate acoustical source and recording space could be found. No argument there either. But no microphone is perfect nor do they have the kind of flat frequency response of a Redbook CD, even the best of them |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:17:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:45:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message "Well", I'd be interested in learning something about the ages of audiophiles in that room full. If it were comprised of men, average age over the age of 50 (and without hearing aids), I wouldn't attach much significance to the results for the obvious reason(s). I consider myself fortunate in still be able to hear that my rig is "on". Today, I'm 61. While the sensitivity of my hearing isn't what it was, I can still hear well enough at reasonble listening levels for comparing and auditioning, 85-95 dB so that people tell me that the work I do sounds good. Ditto and I'm 63. But do the math - The ABX partners did the following definitive testing related to Red Book CD players which were published back in 1986: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) The actual listening tests were done in 1985 in order to meet the publication date. It was before I turned 39. It was also when CD players were VERY primitive. They have improved considerably since then as have the recordings. Most of the technological improvements since 1985 relate to reducing the cost of production. The first Sony player's most significant flaw was its expensive but flawed analog reconstruction filters. Sony's next generation players oversampled and used digital filtering. Philips first generation players used digital filters. And the little Magnavox/Phillips FD-1000 was the best sounding of the first generation of players as well, even though it was only 14-bit. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! Yep. People have been "hearing" the difference between amplifiers, cables, connectors, and bit-depths and sample rates as long as they've been around, and as long as they know what they're listening to. These claims invariably fail real controlled comparisons, at which point the claimants suddenly take on the mantra of one audio religion or another. The Boston Audio Society did a test over a period of a year, in which they took hi-res program material around to golden-eared people, using their own playback systems. Then they ABX'd them with a downconverted version, at 16 bits, 44.1K. No one could hear the difference. That bears repeating. No one could hear the difference. The results were published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, September 2007 (Volume 55, Number 9). The religion, I fear, will go on, unabated. -- Earl |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:17:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message It was also when CD players were VERY primitive. They have improved considerably since then as have the recordings. Most of the technological improvements since 1985 relate to reducing the cost of production. The first Sony player's most significant flaw was its expensive but flawed analog reconstruction filters. Sony's next generation players oversampled and used digital filtering. Philips first generation players used digital filters. And the little Magnavox/Phillips FD-1000 was the best sounding of the first generation of players as well, even though it was only 14-bit. It was 14 bit internally, but decimation was used to trade off the extra samples for better dynamic range. My recollections are that the performance at the output terminals was more like 16 bits. A little shy, but then so are most players to this day. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Jun 19, 11:57 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Simonel wrote: line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. What I think that tells us is that something in the A/D conversion when running at 44.1 Khz is not quite getting as much detail as an A/D converter running at 96 Khz. In other words it's in the analog section for both converters that really differentiates them. Converting a 96/24 digital audio file to 44.1/16 takes place completely in the digital domain. It has been established that any type of digital conversion yields dramatically low distortion as to be considered no loss at all. So, whenever this issue of 96 or 44.1 comes up, people should really clarify the comparison. I would clarify it by saying that a 96 Khz audio file that was digitally converted to 44/16 shows no difference. But a 96 Khz recorded file vs a 44.1 recorded file? Everyone will eventually come to agree that there is a difference. It may be subtle and appreciated by a precious few, but it's there. CD |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Jun 19, 8:43 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:53:19 -0700, codifus wrote (in article ): On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording do have one advantage . . . .hi rez Well yes, but that's not really my point. If competently recorded 16-bit, 44.1 KHz ALREADY perfectly captures everything that the microphones pick-up, then adding more resolution is like transferring 8mm home movies to high-definition DVD. I.E, no matter what the resolution of the recording device, its not going to resolve more than what's there already. In sound recording its the microphones and mixer that's the limiting factors and you're never going to get more music than what's available at the output of the mixer (or mic preamps) no matter what the bit depth or the sample rate. I think a better analogy would be 35 mm motion pictures. At first we had movies distributed to consumers on VHS tapes. The quality was merely adequate. It didn't even approach the original motion picture's quality. Then came the DVD. Dramatically better picture but still not quite up the quality of the original. Now we are at the early stages of blu-ray, and even at its best 1080p quality, although fantastic, still does not capture everything that's in the original 35 mm motion picture master. 44.1 is like a DVD and 96 is like Blu-ray And the similarities don'tend there. Like their video counterparts, the high rez sound format are struggling for acceptance (OK they lost) whereas the very good but not perfect semi high rez medium makes everyone happy. They may not sound better but they do catch more detail. As with all hi end hifi, the difference is usually subtle. Another thing I believe is that a studio recording is bound to exploit a high rez format's capability much more than a live recording ever will. In the studio, all sound is controlled, especially the room's sound. A saxophone is setup in the room, a mic best suited to record it is used, etc. This goes for each and every instrument in the recording. Each instrument is given 1st class acoustic treatment to get the best out of it. And, each instrument can even be recorded separately, completely isolating its sound from all the other instruments in the composition. The resulting final recording would be a blend of everything having had their sound captured in the best possible way. The problem with studio recordings is that for the most part, they sound like what they a studio recordings. Sure they may have more "inner detail" than a live recording, but with each instrument isolated from the others, or even, as you say, recorded separately, one thing you can never call such a recording is "stereo". You cannot pan-pot instruments to their correct position in the ensemble and get any sense of their relationship to the rest of the ensemble, or of the space they are occupying. What you get is multi-channel mono and I'm also afraid that instruments miked up-close simply do not SOUND the same as instruments miked "en ensemble". A lot of this inner detail of which you speak wasn't intended by the composer to be heard by the audience, anyway, and as such, might be too much detail. When I record these two bands in rehearsal, They are rehearsing in a real rehearsal hall. These halls are, essentially, studios. They have double doors with an "air lock" between them, the walls are treated and the ceilings have huge hanging, curved baffles. Outside the room, you hear essentially nothing. But I still use the same microphone techniques as I do for performance in the big auditorium and only spot where I think its absolutely necessary (such as the piano) Even so, the overall microphones are a stereo pair and the sense of the piano's place in the room is maintained. This is where we differ. I always treat a live recording and a studio recording as 2 completely different animals. I don't think a studio recording should ever try to sound live. 3 dimensional, yes, but live? Just make it live, then. It would be a whole lot easier. What I was getting at earlier is that when you did all your testing, I bet you used all your live recordings, or live recordings from others, no? Like I said before, a studio recording, offering more high resolution detail in a recording will bring out the differences between 96 Khz and 44.1. With a live recording its all about mic position, working the "room" acoustics, in this case the stage, as best as possible, and hope for the best for anything else. If a live recording sounds good it is due to more of an ensemble effort, not anything that uniquely brings out the best of each instrument, be it the singer's voice, the violin or drum section. But then again, the audience doesn't have benefit of the spot-lighting that one can do when recording, so I'm not sure that the best recordings are made the way you describe. To my mind, recording is about bringing realism into the listening room and that means either transporting the listener to the hall where the performance took place (difficult to impossible with two channels) or bringing the performance to the listener in his room (doable with two channels). It's a matter of taste, I guess, but for the most part, I prefer simple, stereo miking to studio tricks with isolation baffles, one microphone per instrument, and instruments recorded separately and in isolation. To me that's not stereo recording and its not real. (so much for my two cents) G! I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc. I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so as to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo recording. 2 mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc. Then when its all panned together, you are also manipulating the spaciousness of each single recording. The complexity and cost would no doubt be prohibitive, but it would be my type of ultimate stereo recording. My 2 cents CD CD |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:34:50 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ): On Jun 19, 11:57 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Simonel wrote: line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. What I think that tells us is that something in the A/D conversion when running at 44.1 Khz is not quite getting as much detail as an A/D converter running at 96 Khz. In other words it's in the analog section for both converters that really differentiates them. Converting a 96/24 digital audio file to 44.1/16 takes place completely in the digital domain. It has been established that any type of digital conversion yields dramatically low distortion as to be considered no loss at all. So, whenever this issue of 96 or 44.1 comes up, people should really clarify the comparison. I would clarify it by saying that a 96 Khz audio file that was digitally converted to 44/16 shows no difference. But a 96 Khz recorded file vs a 44.1 recorded file? Everyone will eventually come to agree that there is a difference. It may be subtle and appreciated by a precious few, but it's there. CD I suppose that's possible. I have not, however, experienced it. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:33:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:17:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message It was also when CD players were VERY primitive. They have improved considerably since then as have the recordings. Most of the technological improvements since 1985 relate to reducing the cost of production. The first Sony player's most significant flaw was its expensive but flawed analog reconstruction filters. Sony's next generation players oversampled and used digital filtering. Philips first generation players used digital filters. And the little Magnavox/Phillips FD-1000 was the best sounding of the first generation of players as well, even though it was only 14-bit. It was 14 bit internally, but decimation was used to trade off the extra samples for better dynamic range. My recollections are that the performance at the output terminals was more like 16 bits. A little shy, but then so are most players to this day. It still sounded far superior to the first generation Japanese competition. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:28:16 -0700, Earl Kiosterud wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... The second eye-opener had to do with sample rates and bit depths of digitally recorded music. I was a big fan of SCAD and felt that 24-bit/96 KHz PCM would yield similar results and both were way superior to 16-bit/44.1 KHz "RedBook" CD. Boy was I wrong! Yep. People have been "hearing" the difference between amplifiers, cables, connectors, and bit-depths and sample rates as long as they've been around, and as long as they know what they're listening to. These claims invariably fail real controlled comparisons, at which point the claimants suddenly take on the mantra of one audio religion or another. You are quite correct. The Boston Audio Society did a test over a period of a year, in which they took hi-res program material around to golden-eared people, using their own playback systems. Then they ABX'd them with a downconverted version, at 16 bits, 44.1K. No one could hear the difference. That bears repeating. No one could hear the difference. The results were published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, September 2007 (Volume 55, Number 9). The religion, I fear, will go on, unabated. It's people's right, can't argue that. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
"codifus" wrote in message
I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc. Probably true much of the time. I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so as to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo recording. 2 mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc. I've done recordings like that - used several coincident pairs for each of several small groups of instruments. Then when its all panned together, you are also manipulating the spaciousness of each single recording. You don't need to record instruments with pairs to do that. The complexity and cost would no doubt be prohibitive, Not really. but it would be my type of ultimate stereo recording. IME it is not the magic bullet. |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
codifus wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:43 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:53:19 -0700, codifus wrote (in article ): On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording do have one advantage . . . .hi rez Well yes, but that's not really my point. If competently recorded 16-bit, 44.1 KHz ALREADY perfectly captures everything that the microphones pick-up, then adding more resolution is like transferring 8mm home movies to high-definition DVD. I.E, no matter what the resolution of the recording device, its not going to resolve more than what's there already. In sound recording its the microphones and mixer that's the limiting factors and you're never going to get more music than what's available at the output of the mixer (or mic preamps) no matter what the bit depth or the sample rate. I think a better analogy would be 35 mm motion pictures. That would be a terrible analogy, because home video technology has only just begun to encroach on limits of human visual perception, while were were already *there* when CD was introduced, with 16/44.1. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
codifus wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:57 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Simonel wrote: line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It takes time. So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences, to your own satisfaction. *Then* do an ABX. Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or impossible at first, should now be easy. Right? However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form the high rez version. Then there is no intrinsic audible difference. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. What I think that tells us is that something in the A/D conversion when running at 44.1 Khz is not quite getting as much detail as an A/D converter running at 96 Khz. In other words it's in the analog section for both converters that really differentiates them. That may be, but the reported anecdote doesn't tell us that. So, whenever this issue of 96 or 44.1 comes up, people should really clarify the comparison. I would clarify it by saying that a 96 Khz audio file that was digitally converted to 44/16 shows no difference. But a 96 Khz recorded file vs a 44.1 recorded file? Everyone will eventually come to agree that there is a difference. It may be subtle and appreciated by a precious few, but it's there. Prove it. Should be easy, if you're sure it's there. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: I won't argue that point! That 16-bit brick wall can be a real problem when trying to optimize a wide-dynamic range live recording for CD without signal processing. I usually record in 32-bit floating at 44.1 KHz for that very reason. this has been an interesting and intelligently discussed thread and there is one issue that has been skipped in all this. the discussion has focused on a simple recording and playback of the same program in different delivery formats, that's fine. i can argue that different conversion hardware systems will yield audible differences even operating at the same resolution (prism/mytek vs adat/behringer) and that once something is lost in conversion, no matter how subtle, it's gone never to return. but, more to my point: i will submit that any signal processing that occurs with the higher sample rate and longer word length will generally be superior to the same processing applied at lower Fs and shorter word length given the processing algorithm is capable of utilizing the higher res data, which most modern dsp should be capable of doing these days. certainly better coded dsp will yield better results than poor coding, but the concept of high resolution goes beyond simple recording and playback. the cumulative effect in multi=track signal processing would be substantial and even the simple processing that occurs in basic stereo mastering would be affected. consequently, most professionals will use 24 bit (even if skipping 96k Fs) until final dithering to the delivery formats whatever they may be. i also acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of the original post but that seems to have been covered in depth and i thought this aspect was pertinent to the discussion of high res recording. carry on... |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:28:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "codifus" wrote in message I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc. Probably true much of the time. I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so as to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo recording. 2 mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc. I've done recordings like that - used several coincident pairs for each of several small groups of instruments. I've tried this too, and I don't see that it works. The problem is that when you highlight an instrument using a stereo pair (Coincident, X-Y, M-S, ORTF, whatever) you more-or-less have to pan the mikes right right and left to get stereo. When you do that you "sonically" move the instrument (say a piano) from it's actual physical place in the ensemble (for discussion purposes, lets say that it's far stage-left) to stage center. If you have a stereo pair overall, that not only confuses the image, but causes phase cancellations and god knows what all. Am I missing something, because it seems to me that if you highlight an instrument and pan both mikes to keep the instrument firmly planted at its real, physical location, you might as well mono-mike it. Then when its all panned together, you are also manipulating the spaciousness of each single recording. You don't need to record instruments with pairs to do that. The complexity and cost would no doubt be prohibitive, Not really. but it would be my type of ultimate stereo recording. IME it is not the magic bullet. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:29:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): codifus wrote: On Jun 19, 8:43 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:53:19 -0700, codifus wrote (in article ): On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote: Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every level. As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on this NG! For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording do have one advantage . . . .hi rez Well yes, but that's not really my point. If competently recorded 16-bit, 44.1 KHz ALREADY perfectly captures everything that the microphones pick-up, then adding more resolution is like transferring 8mm home movies to high-definition DVD. I.E, no matter what the resolution of the recording device, its not going to resolve more than what's there already. In sound recording its the microphones and mixer that's the limiting factors and you're never going to get more music than what's available at the output of the mixer (or mic preamps) no matter what the bit depth or the sample rate. I think a better analogy would be 35 mm motion pictures. That would be a terrible analogy, because home video technology has only just begun to encroach on limits of human visual perception, while were were already *there* when CD was introduced, with 16/44.1. I think so as well. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who'd a thought?
John wrote:
In article , Sonnova wrote: I won't argue that point! That 16-bit brick wall can be a real problem when trying to optimize a wide-dynamic range live recording for CD without signal processing. I usually record in 32-bit floating at 44.1 KHz for that very reason. this has been an interesting and intelligently discussed thread and there is one issue that has been skipped in all this. the discussion has focused on a simple recording and playback of the same program in different delivery formats, that's fine. i can argue that different conversion hardware systems will yield audible differences even operating at the same resolution (prism/mytek vs adat/behringer) and that once something is lost in conversion, no matter how subtle, it's gone never to return. but, more to my point: i will submit that any signal processing that occurs with the higher sample rate and longer word length will generally be superior to the same processing applied at lower Fs and shorter word length given the processing algorithm is capable of utilizing the higher res data, which most modern dsp should be capable of doing these days. certainly better coded dsp will yield better results than poor coding, but the concept of high resolution goes beyond simple recording and playback. the cumulative effect in multi=track signal processing would be substantial and even the simple processing that occurs in basic stereo mastering would be affected. consequently, most professionals will use 24 bit (even if skipping 96k Fs) until final dithering to the delivery formats whatever they may be. Yes, the benefits of DSP at 16bits are technically well-grounded, and can certainly be audible too. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's standard operating procedure nowadays (as is recording or AD transfer at the higher bit depth) There's also an argument to be made for 24-bit delivery formats, as DSP has become very common in the consumer audio signal chain in the past few years (e.g.AV receivers). A 16-bit source fed into this chain should be converted to 24 or '32' bits anyway. One could argue from parsimony that we might as well eliminate that conversion if we can. The best rationale for higher sample rates similarly revolves around an implementation issue: filtering. But the argument one often sees is, in effect, that more sampling means intrsinically more accurate capture *within the audible range of 20Hz-20kHz*, and therefore better audio. And that's not true, as per Shannon-Nyquist. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| After the superbowl - who'd-a-thunk it? | Pro Audio | |||
| McKelvy, your thought please... | Audio Opinions | |||
| Just a thought | Audio Opinions | |||
| Who'd like to do... | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
