or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › A new approach to misdirection with high rez benefits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A new approach to misdirection with high rez benefits

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

From this review of a Chord DAC at this site:

 

http://www.audiostream.com/content/chord-electronics-chordette-qutehd-dsd-dac

 

 

Here's what Chord has to say about the WTA Filter:

It [the WTA Filter] solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings. Most people believe that this is due to the presence of ultrasonic information being audible even though the best human hearing is limited to 20kHz. What is not well known is that 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and that the sound quality limit for sampling lies in the MHz region.

768 kHz recordings cannot sound better because of information above 200 kHz being important - simply because musical instruments, microphones, amplifiers and loudspeakers do not work at these frequencies nor can we hear them. So if it is not the extra bandwidth that is important, why do higher sampling rates sound better?

The answer is not being able to hear inaudible supersonic information, but the ability to hear the timing of transients more clearly. It has long been known that the human ear and brain can detect differences in the phase of sound between the ears to the order of microseconds. This timing difference between the ears is used for localising high frequency sound. Since transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this!

 

 

So a new wrinkle in the mis-information about the need for high resolution recordings.  We don't need the extra bandwidth as humans don't hear above 20 khz.  But we need it for our microsecond timing ability.  Transient detection.  Phase discrimination. We need at least 1 megahertz sample rates so they say.

 

 Of course the little problem with that is 44.1/16 has phase accuracy into the picosecond range.  Oh well, a new slant on trying to make it sound reasonable to require something unreasonable.  I guess you could consider it progress.  A high end company peddling techno-babble that at least now admits our hearing is limited to 20 khz.  Heck in another century maybe this stuff will finally die out.


Edited by esldude - 2/6/14 at 10:17am
post #2 of 5

I have a little problem with this too I guess ^_^.

 

if we cannot register a vibration faster than 20khz however loud it is, isn't that proof in itself that we can't hear any changes faster than that?

post #3 of 5
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

I have a little problem with this too I guess ^_^.

 

if we cannot register a vibration faster than 20khz however loud it is, isn't that proof in itself that we can't hear any changes faster than that?


Well one thing is equating transient detection and the claim we can hear it at microsecond levels.  What humans can hear is a difference in timing between each ear of 10-12 microseconds.  The distortion in their claims relates to this.  You don't need microsecond sampling to have a digitally sampled system show a phase difference as small as a microsecond.  In fact 44.1/16 bit can do this into the 55 picosecond range if the rest of the system is quiet enough with low enough timing inaccuracies. 

 

Another distortion is saying microseconds.  The generally accept level is 10-12 microseconds.  Even by their distorted logic you don't need more than a sample rate of 100k.  In other words by their own thinking anything over 96 k wouldn't be heard as better.  Yet they push for 768 better than 384 better than 192.  The obvious answer is these guys are never going to say enough is enough. 

 

See even though two signals may have a timing difference lower than the sample period, that slight shift will result in the samples being different.

post #4 of 5

It starts right out with a misconception!

 

Quote:

Here's what Chord has to say about the WTA Filter:

It [the WTA Filter] solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings.

 

How is that well known? All of the blind A/B testing I've seen says they sound the same.


Edited by bigshot - 2/6/14 at 2:30pm
post #5 of 5

i didn't think this was new, as i thought i had read about this in regards to DSD and it's ridiculous sample rates.  i've only started to inform myself on DSD so maybe i'm missing the point here

 

either way, it just goes to prove that in 100 years all of this won't go away, it'll just be a matter of the sales pitch becoming more and more creative :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › A new approach to misdirection with high rez benefits