Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files? - Page 7  

post #91 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOctron View Post

 

Whats the difference between "resolution of volume" and "dynamic range" again?

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the highest possible level without clipping and the noise floor. "Resolution of volume" assumes that volume can only be changed in discrete steps, which is not true with dithering.

post #92 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the highest possible level without clipping and the noise floor. "Resolution of volume" assumes that volume can only be changed in discrete steps, which is not true with dithering.

+1 on the dynamic range definition.  There is no such term as "resolution of volume" as applied to audio.  It's apparently a term used by those unfamiliar with dynamic range (or for that matter, linear quantization, sample rate and dithering).  Try googling it. 

post #93 of 168
  • Correct self
  • Other people continue to correct me afterwards
  • "try googling it"

 

 

post #94 of 168

My CD player sounds better than my PC/DAC.

 

But my CD player cost $3k and my DAC cost $200

 

that's probably why

 

can't the God connection myself

post #95 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT66 View Post

My CD player sounds better than my PC/DAC.

 

But my CD player cost $3k and my DAC cost $200

 

that's probably why

 

can't the God connection myself

Well, if it costs more it must be better!

 

By the way, I happen to have a great bridge for sale...

post #96 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahbickart View Post

By the way, I happen to have a great bridge for sale...
...what tubes are you running? Take Paypal?
post #97 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahbickart View Post

Well, if it costs more it must be better!

By the way, I happen to have a great bridge for sale...
Ever heard the Linn Ikemi ?
post #98 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the highest possible level without clipping and the noise floor. "Resolution of volume" assumes that volume can only be changed in discrete steps, which is not true with dithering.


Resolution would refer to a limit in precision of the stored information...

If volume doesn't have resolution it means the amplitude of a digitally stored waveform has infinity precision, how does that work?

post #99 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOctron View Post

Resolution would refer to a limit in precision of the stored information...

If volume doesn't have resolution it means the amplitude of a digitally stored waveform has infinity precision, how does that work?

 

Yes, the sample point values have limited precision (resolution).

 

But the output volume can be adjusted more finely than that if dithering is used, assuming that we're looking at the volume represented by a string of multiple sample points (so nonzero time duration).

 

If you assume an infinite number of sample points to work with, that's where the infinite precision in terms of representing volume comes from.  If you want to bump the volume up very very slightly, then at every instance of the waveform, it is statistically slightly more likely for the sample point to be the next higher value (e.g. 221 rather than 220, based on the dithering noise).  As a result, that pushes up the average amplitude of the analog output waveform a little bit, doesn't it?  Restricting to a finite number of samples at 16-bit precision, it's still certainly more than 2^16 possible volume output levels that can be represented.  

 

At least, that's my limited understanding of it.


Edited by mikeaj - 5/20/13 at 9:37am
post #100 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOctron View Post


Resolution would refer to a limit in precision of the stored information...

If volume doesn't have resolution it means the amplitude of a digitally stored waveform has infinity precision, how does that work?

 

It has been explained a few times already. Dithered quantization does not limit the volume to discrete "steps", and it basically adds uncorrelated white (or not necessarily white with noise shaping) noise to the signal. That is, it sounds the same as "infinite" resolution with some constant hiss added. You can generate a sine wave with a peak amplitude of 0.2 sample, for example, and it will be there in the quantized signal, just very noisy.

 

By the way, if you haven't already done so, I recommend watching this video that explains the basics of sampling and quantization in an easy to understand way.


Edited by stv014 - 5/20/13 at 9:40am
post #101 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT66 View Post


Ever heard the Linn Ikemi ?

 

 

Have you heard the phrase "magical thinking" ?

 

Is this the same Linn whose founder was famously incapable of detecting the insertion of a nominally 16 bit (actually performs at about 15 bits)  SONY PCM-F1 A/D/A chain inserted after the analog output of his turntable or who insisted that digital alarm clocks in the same room as analog system caused damage (he was also incapable of detecting presence/absence) , or is it the Linn who steadfastly refuse to publish ANY meaningful performance data on their digital kit. Or is it the Linn who no longer bother to make CD players at all...a real vote of confidence for the medium !

 

FWIW  your Linn is actually outperformed by a $350 Marantz CD5004 http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-cd5004-cd-player-marantz-cd5004-cd-player-measurements - so you could upgrade and get some cash back by flogging your player to someone.

 

If you genuinely believe that price and name have any correlation with actual performance you need to read some of the tests on the http://www.matrixhifi.com/ site - better still get a pal to set up a blind test between your computer source and your CD player source, 

post #102 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post


Have you heard the phrase "magical thinking" ?

Is this the same Linn whose founder was famously incapable of detecting the insertion of a nominally 16 bit (actually performs at about 15 bits)  SONY PCM-F1 A/D/A chain inserted after the analog output of his turntable or who insisted that digital alarm clocks in the same room as analog system caused damage (he was also incapable of detecting presence/absence) , or is it the Linn who steadfastly refuse to publish ANY meaningful performance data on their digital kit. Or is it the Linn who no longer bother to make CD players at all...a real vote of confidence for the medium !

FWIW  your Linn is actually outperformed by a $350 Marantz CD5004 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-cd5004-cd-player-marantz-cd5004-cd-player-measurements
 - so you could upgrade and get some cash back by flogging your player to someone.

If you genuinely believe that price and name have any correlation with actual performance you need to read some of the tests on the http://www.matrixhifi.com/
 site - better still get a pal to set up a blind test between your computer source and your CD player source, 

That's a good point, added expense doesn't automatically correlate to improved SQ. I like my Linn Unidisk because it's as solid as brick of aluminium, and I can't hear it running even with my ear up against it (it looks snazzy too). I'll pay extra for extremely well done aesthetics and build quality, but I don't have any illusions that I can tell the difference between it and a good "mid-range" transport (like that Marantz). That's the main reason I've been getting into Accuphase lately, damn they make some really nice stuff.
post #103 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

 

Yes, the sample point values have limited precision (resolution).

 

But the output volume can be adjusted more finely than that if dithering is used, assuming that we're looking at the volume represented by a string of multiple sample points (so nonzero time duration).

 

If you assume an infinite number of sample points to work with, that's where the infinite precision in terms of representing volume comes from.  If you want to bump the volume up very very slightly, then at every instance of the waveform, it is statistically slightly more likely for the sample point to be the next higher value (e.g. 221 rather than 220, based on the dithering noise).  As a result, that pushes up the average amplitude of the analog output waveform a little bit, doesn't it?  Restricting to a finite number of samples at 16-bit precision, it's still certainly more than 2^16 possible volume output levels that can be represented.  

 

At least, that's my limited understanding of it.

 

Makes sense...

 

My thinking was that the process is like the upscaling of digital images,

you can create a result with a higher "resolution" than than the original (interpolation) but its amount of information (detail) will be still the same.

When displayed, you will get finer stepping/gradations but the value of real signal/information will be still the same finite amount as on the original.

 

Like, scaling a 3 megapixel image up to 30 megapixel will give you additional pixels to display, a finer level of transition from pixel to pixel to measure or observe, but it will still just contain the precision of a 3 megapixel image, as the new values are estimated and not necessary what they would have been if the image was taken at 30MP to begin with (ie. there wont be new things visible in the upscaled image that were not visible in the original -> not more resolution, just more pixels).


Edited by LordOctron - 5/21/13 at 6:23am
post #104 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOctron View Post

Makes sense...

 

My thinking was that the process is like the upscaling of digital images,

you can create a result with a higher "resolution" than than the original (interpolation) but its amount of information (detail) will be still the same.

When displayed, you will get finer stepping/gradations but the value of real signal/information will be still the same finite amount as on the original.

 

Like, scaling a 3 megapixel image up to 30 megapixel will give you additional pixels to display, a finer level of transition from pixel to pixel to measure or observe, but it will still just contain the precision of a 3 megapixel image, as the new values are estimated and not necessary what they would have been if the image was taken at 30MP to begin with (ie. there wont be new things visible in the upscaled image that were not visible in the original -> not more resolution, just more pixels).

 

I think it's probably better to try to develop separate understandings of images and audio, as some mechanisms and mathematics are similar, but others are not.

 

On a side note, some better image upscaling algorithms are nonlinear (I think there could be some filtering too? I know even less about image processing), so you might say that they're slightly reducing the information by upscaling... not just keeping the same level.  Some type of (ideal...?) sinc-based interpolation may introduce noticeable ringing across pixels—perceptually there are better methods.  I think it's more complicated.

 

 

But anyway, if you want to make an analogy, I'd make it this:

Imagine a system where each pixel can take one of 2^24 colors (8 bits each for R, G, and B).  You are displaying on a system with an infinite number of pixels, each so small that you couldn't possibly distinguish individual ones.  So if you're looking at some area of the display and some pixels are [130 0 0] and some others are [129 0 0], effectively you see a color between [130 0 0] and [129 0 0] (and how close it is to one or the other depends on the likelihood of each).  That's pretty much spatial dithering taken to the extreme.  Temporal dithering would be if the pixels rapidly shifted back and forth between [130 0 0] and [129 0 0], with the time spent in each part determining the resulting color.  Some monitors do that too, especially on 6-bit (18-bit?) displays.

 

But that doesn't quite work, as audio output waveforms don't actually represent the individual sample points but what they represent as a whole, whereas for displays each pixel actually does represent what that sample point is.


Edited by mikeaj - 5/21/13 at 7:04am
post #105 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegalau View Post

 

Well... I don't know what's good for you saying that. but its rude and no manner. Remind me of someone who disbelieve in god and call people that go to chruch is idiot

 

... Well that sort of bait is just not fair.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files?