[leeperry]

Grover Washington-Winelight (DVD-Audio) (1980)

Quote:

This is the first 192/24 track I have had an opportunity to listen to, and it is gorgeous. Contrary to my expectations, all that extra sampling rate and bandwidth doesn't really make the audio sound any "brighter" (which kind of makes sense because my ears can't hear any higher than 16 kHz or so anyway!). It does however, make the sound seem "smoother" and the transients much better defined. Smooth and crisp - it's like having your cake and eating it!

this disc is kinda cheesy, but "just the two of us" has never sounded better

like the man says, it sounds so natural & so smooth.....a far cry from the CDDA I can tell you that..

I'm becoming so addicted to HD audio

(Depeche Mode's Violator in 24/96 5.1 lossless is simply out of this world), it makes CDDA sound agressive and mp3-like

for what it's worth I did an audiogram like 1 month ago, and the doc said my audition was as good as it gets

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Say, I have heard many times, even by some "Gurus" that doing music about the "Loudness War", and they say that when we all be moving to 24/96 it won't be a problem cause there will be much more "space" for the dynamic, so even if the sound it more compress, it still be good. What do you think about it? and that claim ?

I'm afraid you've got this the wrong way around. The loudness war is caused by over-compression or limiting. BTW, "compression" as an audio term is not related to data compression but to the reduction of the dynamic range. Limiting is just an extreme version of compression. Compression works by reducing the peaks in the waveform, allowing the overall level to be raised. In some genres of music the dynamic range is reduced to just a few decibels. As bit depth only encodes dynamic range, the more compressed, the fewer digital bits are required. So, if you've got a piece of music with quite a wide dynamic range, let's say 36dB, 6 bits are required to encode it. This means that on a CD you would be getting 6bits worth of music and 10bits worth of noise. With 24bit you are still only going to get 6bits of music but now you have 18bits of noise. In other words, using hi-rez 24/96 will not make the slightest difference whatsoever.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, compression is an invaluable tool during production. It is the over use of compression which is the problem. This loudness war is not related to the format. In fact, if digital had not been invented and we all still used vinyl, we would likely still be the same position with the loudness war as we are now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif all they say is that an higher fidelity can be achieved by increasing either the sampling freq, the resolution or both.

This statement is true, up to a point. 44.1kFs/s is definitely better than 22kFs/s and 16bit is definitely better than 8bit. But once we get to 16bit 44.1kFs/s, we have reached the limits of analogue equipment to reproduce it and the limits of a human being to hear it. If you see anyone (or any company) claiming that 24/96 is definitely an improvement in quality or fidelity, that should set your alarm bells ringing that the company either does not understand how digital audio works or is deliberately trying to mislead you. As I mentioned before, there is no reliable proof that anyone can tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 24/96, anywhere near normal listening levels. So, at best, companies are making claims which they cannot prove.

You have to realise, for audio equipment manufacturers and retailers, 24/96 provides the best marketing opportunity for years. It is not easy to continue to sell the same old specification equipment. Products that have been on the market for a while eventually get discounted and the profit margins are lower. It's much better and easier if you've got a new standard and therefore a whole new range of equipment you can sell at a higher price with a bigger profit margin. The fact that this new standard does not provide the slightest improvement is not really important. The retailers just want to sell more units for higher prices and if they can entice existing costomers (to the new standard) as well as new ones, how much better can it get? This cycle has pretty much been the trend over the whole history of consumer audio equipment. In some areas of consumer audio, escalating claims and prices has been going on for so long that the claims and cost of some equipment has completely lost touch with reality.

I only really see this problem getting worse. Digital Audio Technology has already reached (and exceeded) the limits of human perception, so all that is left for the manufacturers and retailers is to continue developing products which exceed these limits by ever more ridiculous and superflous amounts.

G

 

[mark_h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif This loudness war is not related to the format.

???

 

[gregorio]

Compression was invented in the 1940's and was part of the basic equipment requirement for any studio by the 1960's. There are a few classic models of compressors from the 60's and 70's which are still in use today. Digital technology through the 80's and 90's saw the development of ever more powerful compressors. Today's digital compressors and limiters allow for a huge amount of compression, while the development of analogue compressors has stagnated. This loudness war is not a new thing, when I first got into recording in '92, the discussion among studio professionals regarding over compression was already in full swing, even though the majority of recordings were still mixed in analogue.

The only way to get extra loundness is with the use of compression. More bits just allows for a larger dynamic range and nothing else. As compression reduces the dynamic range, so it makes absolutely no difference whether you're using 16bit, 24bit or 500bits. All you are going to get is more and more empty bits or bits containing only noise.

G

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif there is no reliable proof that anyone can tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 24/96, anywhere near normal listening levels.

well, it's like those so-called DBT cable tests, they are usually run on speakers in non-acoustically controlled rooms.

I believe/know that you can hear far more details from hifi headphones(cd3k/dt770 600Ω/you name it) than from any speakers....you'll be able to enjoy the DVD-A improvement over CDDA by a long shot.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif well, it's like those so-called DBT cable tests, they are usually run on speakers in non-acoustically controlled rooms. I believe/know that you can hear far more details from hifi headphones(cd3k/dt770 600Ω/you name it) than from any speakers....you'll be able to enjoy the CDDA/DVD-A improvement by a long shot.

There have been many DBTs, in studios, in laboratories and on consumer equipment. No reliable results have been obtained at normal hearing levels where either consumers, professionals or scientists could tell the difference.

I think you may have mis-understood. Yes, you can of course hear more detail with a good set of cans than with speakers. However, the difference between 16 and 24bit is many orders of magnitude beyond what either your cans or speakers can reproduce, what you can hear or indeed, any recording on the market.

As far as I can tell, the DT770 have a range of 96dB. This is not even enough to hear the full potential resolution of CD, let alone 24bit (144dB). I'm not questioning you are hearing an improvement with your DVD-A recordings, I'm just informing you that the improvement is not related to the higher bit depth. It is some improvement in mastering or production, not the increase in bit depth.

G

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif well, it's like those so-called DBT cable tests, they are usually run on speakers in non-acoustically controlled rooms. I believe/know that you can hear far more details from hifi headphones(cd3k/dt770 600Ω/you name it) than from any speakers....you'll be able to enjoy the DVD-A improvement over CDDA by a long shot.

Maybe, but until I see it in a peer reviewed paper or at least in a well documented strict protocol with a skipload of test subects I will retain the right to remain dubious...call me old fashioned.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not questioning you are hearing an improvement with your DVD-A recordings, I'm just informing you that the improvement is not related to the higher bit depth.

as you previously stated, it prolly has more to do w/ the increased sampling frequency...192KHz sounds clearer than 44.1 to my ears

 

[HeadLover]

Someone told me that Vinyl can't have the same "loudness war" as a cd, mean you can put sound very loud on it
Is it true?
Is the dynamic of a Vinyl is better than a CD or what? and if you compare a Vinyl, is it like 16/44 or 16/48 or 24/96 or what ??

And why do people use 24/96 when transferring music from a Vinyl to a FLAC or what ever lossless audio format ?

And btw, isn't 24/96 is better? I mean some brands claim that CD can't get better than like 90+ SNR (92 or something), while their amp and so on, can get even up to 110SNR, so we need a better format like 24/96

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone told me that Vinyl can't have the same "loudness war" as a cd, mean you can put sound very loud on it Is it true? Is the dynamic of a Vinyl is better than a CD or what? and if you compare a Vinyl, is it like 16/44 or 16/48 or 24/96 or what ?? And why do people use 24/96 when transferring music from a Vinyl to a FLAC or what ever lossless audio format ? And btw, isn't 24/96 is better? I mean some brands claim that CD can't get better than like 90+ SNR (92 or something), while their amp and so on, can get even up to 110SNR, so we need a better format like 24/96

The reason 24bit is used when recording from vinyl is because of the additional headroom. However, the resultant 24bit recording could be converted to 16bit with no loss of quality, as of course you don't need headroom on playback.

The theoretical dynamic range (SNR) of CD is 96dB, perceptually using noise-shaped dither this figure is increased to 120dB. Vinyl has a maximum dynamic range of 80dB. Also, 96dB (let alone 120dB) is way more dynamic range than any recording ever released (analogue or digital). This 120dB dynamic range is well beyond the capabilities of vinyl, probably at the limit of the best playback equipment and well beyond safe listening levels. The closest thing to vinyl would be 16bit 44.1kFs/s but the sound signatures of analogue and digital are so different that any direct comparison is very difficult.

G

 

[scompton]

From what I've read, vintage vinyl was compressed to enable tighter spacing of the grooves. I also know of one anecdote of sudden dynamic changes causing the tone arm to jump. When the Telarc digital LP of the 1812 Overture came out, one of my coworkers bought it and he said that every time he played it the tone arm leapt out the track when the cannons went off.

 

[leeperry]

I tried converting my 24/96 vynil encodes to CDDA and the crackles became much more audible....it seemed pretty clear to me that the audio resolution downscale worsened the SQ

but again, it's prolly due to the double sampling frequency..

 

[manaox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Someone told me that Vinyl can't have the same "loudness war" as a cd, mean you can put sound very loud on it Is it true? Is the dynamic of a Vinyl is better than a CD or what? and if you compare a Vinyl, is it like 16/44 or 16/48 or 24/96 or what ??

This is just for clarification, I expect many people already understand the difference between analog and digital playback. Vinyl is analog on playback, meaning that your not taking ones and zeros to sample and that there are no bits being read, therefore you do not need a DAC. Because it does not use sampling, the sine wave comes naturally from the electrical difference created by the depth of the stylus needle instead of being reconstructed from bit sampling. I'm no expert, so that may be oversimplifying it. You would need an ADC to record what comes off of it and it would be a digital format before its recorded onto the vinyl, that is is where the 24/96 comes into play for the headroom as I understand it.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tried converting my 24/96 vynil encodes to CDDA and the crackles became much more audible....it seemed pretty clear to me that the audio resolution downscale worsened the SQ but again, it's prolly due to the double sampling frequency..

It can't really be the higher sample rate either. The only option is that there is a fault or some very poor coding going on in the software of what ever you used to do the conversion.

G

 

[leeperry]

well I was using Wavelab at that time, and I tried all the noiseshaping/resamplers available...now you tell me that this app is junk, but I believe it's the best Windows editor