[hciman77]

I have tracked down a large number of PDFs of Julian Hirsch writing for Stereo Review - see

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/wil...-in-print.html.

I have just read his review of 11 First gen CD players from 1983. This is fascinating stuff. Still cannot find a refe to the 5% , but still looking.

 

[Febs]

Thanks for posting that. Great link, and some fascinating articles that really bring me back. I had a subscription to Stereo Review in the mid-1980s, so I probably read some of those articles when they first came out.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif As to «perfect reconstruction» by means of a «reconstruction filter» according to the Nyquist theorem: A sampling frequency just a little above the frequency to be reproduced -- with barely more than one sample per half-wave -- causes an amplitude modulation (beat) like in the graph. What the reconstruction filter does is to make a continuous sine wave out of the amplitude-modulated signal. So far, so good. But it comes at a price. In fact the amplitude modulation represents a sort of transient. The «reconstruction filter» removes it by introducing a resonance, that's what the sharp 21(.5)-kHz low-pass filter serves for (apart from its anti-aliasing function). But what if the original signal consists in fact of an amplitude-modulated sine wave? Of course it will be converted into a continuous sine wave. That's why the term «reconstruction» should be taken with a pinch of salt. Because it's only valid for sine waves and not for transients. BTW, that's not to say that digital can only capture 5% of the original analog signal (which is an arbitrary number anyway). It's just that sampling with 44.1 kHz is critical for the upper range of the audible spectrum when it comes to transient response. .

Simply put:

at 44.1 khz sampling rate it is not so perfect...looking at the graph at 192 khz sampling rate the sine wave is perfect...hence it sounds much, much better...

Now the big question: why don't they move on and make all players and cd's 192khz?! Or make a new cd 192khz standard...

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simply put: at 44.1 khz sampling rate it is not so perfect...looking at the graph at 192 khz sampling rate the sine wave is perfect...hence it sounds much, much better... Now the big question: why don't they move on and make all players and cd's 192khz?! Or make a new cd 192khz standard...

They did, it is called DVD-A.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that you are still confusing frequency response with dynamic range, and bit depth with sampling rate. A 48kHz sampling rate would allow you to reproduce frequencies of up to 24kHz, and a 96kHz sampling rate would allow you to reproduce frequencies of up to 48kHz. You can achieve a dynamic range of 96dB with a bit depth of 16 bits, and higher dynamic ranges with higher bit depths.

I wasn't confused but i should have wrote it down the way you did...It is quite clear to me how it works...

sampling rate and frequency are linked together and bit depth and dynamic range...should wrote this down earlier.

I ment to say that they are using 24 bits for higher dynamic range and that they use higher sampling rates for higher frequency responce so they can hide the flaws in the non audible range...(oversampling is done far above 21khz...) as where it is done with 44.1 khz very near the audible range or even audible range...

Edit: i see i indeed mixed them up in the writing...it should have been frequency instead of dynamic range and visa versa...

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for posting that. Great link, and some fascinating articles that really bring me back. I had a subscription to Stereo Review in the mid-1980s, so I probably read some of those articles when they first came out.

Still no sign of this mythical 1 in 20 yet, two posts to different rec.audio newsgroups and no more info.

Art, leg it down to you local library and find this citation will you, my library has its journals online and doesnt go back before 1995 for Stereo Review.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif They did, it is called DVD-A.

I want something like that on a cd...cd discs are still more reliable then dvd discs!!!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomride /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many people still enjoy (keyword enjoy) recent music on vinyl better, and my belief for this is not that vinyl is a sonically superior medium, but that vinyl colorizes the sound a bit, which may become more pleasurable to the ears of many listeners.

Hence my comparisson of tube amps versus solid state amps...

i compare a cdplayer with a solid state amp and a tube amp with a record player...cdplayer beying more precise but can sound harsh...tube amp more lush and warmer...

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif I want something like that on a cd...cd discs are still more reliable then dvd discs!!!

How do you mean? Because of pit depth and size? Laser wave length etc? Or do you mean fragility of the actual discs...layer material and degeneration?

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hence my comparisson of tube amps versus solid state amps... i compare a cdplayer with a solid state amp and a tube amp with a record player...cdplayer beying more precise but can sound harsh...tube amp more lush and warmer...

By precise what do you mean? I find that even though I have a high-end CD player, my TT, being even higher end...and the cart...a good quality (though not the best and not even the tiniest most linear) is able to reproduce more detail. So...given that each system is capable of reproducing the same amounts of detail...is there more on the LP than the CD? To my ears it seems so.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you mean? Because of pit depth and size? Laser wave length etc? Or do you mean fragility of the actual discs...layer material and degeneration?

Durability...cd's as a backup device are much better then dvd's a read an extensive review for the government of using cd's or dvd's as a backup medium and the conclusion was that cd's deteriate much less then dvd's...some even say dvd's only hold for 5 years!!!

so, as a medium, cd's are much, much better. Unless you wanna buy everything again every 5 years or so...

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif By precise what do you mean? I find that even though I have a high-end CD player, my TT, being even higher end...and the cart...a good quality (though not the best and not even the tiniest most linear) is able to reproduce more detail. So...given that each system is capable of reproducing the same amounts of detail...is there more on the LP than the CD? To my ears it seems so.

Nope, as i wrote in this thread before...high end cdplayers and high end record players(both were about 20.000 dollars) are equally good for reproducing sound, i heard no difference in transparency, detail, body etc...the only difference i could hear was that the cdplayer sounded slightly more harsh(smidgen) and the record player slightly warmer...everything else was exactly the same!!!

So, at the top end both are equal and just a matter of preference, even the harshness could maybe be delt with with another cable(interlink)...perhaps...

What is a given fact is that cheap record players sound better then cheap cdplayers.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is a given fact is that cheap record players sound better then cheap cdplayers.

Most definitely

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Still no sign of this mythical 1 in 20 yet, two posts to different rec.audio newsgroups and no more info.

Not too surprising. I read most of the articles in the link you cited to, and found nothing even close. Admittedly, those articles are only a small sample of Hirsch's work (perhaps 1 in 20? haha).

I did find one quote, however, that I thought was very apropos to the discussion here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Hirsch As for myself, I consider myself an audio agnostic, open to any convincing argument, but still requiring proof.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is a given fact is that cheap record players sound better then cheap cdplayers.

You got that exactly backwards.

See ya
Steve