[analogsurviver]

Quote:

What microphone(s) do you use to record all the bat-frequencies ?
I don't know of many mics that capture ANYTHING above 22kHz
and those that do are generally NOT designed for recording real music !
 
Regarding 'old recordings' :
A REALLY GOOD tape-recorder has/had a dynamic range of maybe 68-72db .
LP's have theoretical dynamic range of 80db .
 
So, I'm not really sure where all those bat-frequencies are ??
 
Check this fex :
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Hahahaha - BATS again ! Poor bats - whenever the above 20 kHz for audio is mentioned, there the first thing mentioned is, you guessed it, BATS !
 
Seriously, it does not take long to find mics that can go beyond 20 kHz. Obviously, it will have to be small diaphragm, most likely omnidirectional.
 
In the ascending order of performance and price :
 
1. ) http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/em06_wm61_a_b_dne.pdf
 
NOT specified beyond 20 k, but capable of going as high as you can "amplify" it - by about 50 k. NOT going to answer how this can be achieved, but definitely doable.
 
2.) http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=item&category=128&item=24035
 
The whole 406X Series. Again, NOT specified, but capable of beyond 20k. Doable.
 
3. ) http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
 
Specified - to 50 kHz. If you want even tighter specs, available as http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/
 
4. ) http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
 
Specified - to 100 kHz !
 
From my posts one might get the impression there is a trail of casually dropped 500 Euro bills (500 is the greatest Euro note ) behind me wherever I go. Unfortunately, the opposite is true - so far, I can only dream about 3.) and 4.) I just happen to try to push the envelope wherever and whenever possible - and do it on limited budget best as I can. But just the fact that I can not afford the best does not usually preclude the possibility to try to get as much info and experience as humanly possible.
 
If you add REALLY GOOD compressor/expander noise reduction to your REALLY GOOD tape recorder, you end up with 20-30 dB better dynamic range in analog. That is then at least REALLY GOOD 88 dB - and RtoR machines had bandwidth to approx 35 kHz. Blows the CD out of water any day.  Expensive as hell ( tape cost is about $/Eur 1,00 per minute... ) , a royal PITA to calibrate/adjust correctly, but when everything is up, it really does sound good.
 
Check this out:
 
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
 
 
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.” 
― Frank Zappa

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
If you add REALLY GOOD compressor/expander noise reduction to your REALLY GOOD tape recorder, you end up with 20-30 dB better dynamic range in analog. That is then at least REALLY GOOD 88 dB - and RtoR machines had bandwidth to approx 35 kHz. Blows the CD out of water any day.  Expensive as hell ( tape cost is about $/Eur 1,00 per minute... ) , a royal PITA to calibrate/adjust correctly, but when everything is up, it really does sound good.

 
88 dB is still worse than what CD is capable of even with a simple triangular +/-1 LSB white noise dither (93.3 dB unweighted 0-22050 Hz, 95.7 dB A-weighted 0-22050 Hz). While CD cannot reproduce sound above 22050 Hz at all, it does not significantly degrade until getting very close (within ~1 kHz) to that limit. On the other hand, tape gets worse with increasing frequency already below 20 kHz, which is more likely to be actually audible. That is hardly "blowing out of the water". If I had to choose between telling apart high quality tape vs. CD from a high resolution digital original in a blind test, I would choose the tape for a less difficult positive result.
As you already noted, tape noise reduction systems are very sensitive to variations in the playback level and frequency response, and turn them into dynamic compression artifacts. Even under ideal conditions, the reconstruction of the original dynamics might not be perfect, nor is the noise removed during loud sounds in the compressed frequency range (it is psychoacoustically masked instead). Unless the recorded music actually requires the increased dynamic range, one may end up preferring a constant hiss instead, especially if the tape is to be played on different devices than what was used for the recording. Such systems could also be implemented for CD (it actually does have a - very rarely used - pre-emphasis/de-emphasis method of noise reduction), but they are not, because the ~96 dB dynamic range is already good enough and the noise reduction can do more harm than good.

 

[AKG240mkII]

http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/em06_wm61_a_b_dne.pdf
Frequency : 20-20kHz .
 
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=item&category=128&item=24035
Frequency range, ± 2 dB: Soft boost grid: 20 Hz – 20 kHz, 3 dB soft boost at 8 – 20 kHz. High boost grid: 20 Hz – 20 kHz, 10 dB boost at 12 kHz.
 
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
Wow .. Show me the graphs, including conditions !
 
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
"The Sanken CO-100K is the first 100kHz microphone in the world designed for actual professional recording, not for measurement purposes."
THE FIRST .... 
 
Was that the one you used to record the bat-frequencies ?? .
YES - THE BAT-FREQUENCIES  .
And YES - POOR BATS ! 
Nobody else has their ears tortured by +22kHz frequencies at audible levels !

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

 
88 dB is still worse than what CD is capable of even with a simple triangular +/-1 LSB white noise dither (93.3 dB unweighted 0-22050 Hz, 95.7 dB A-weighted 0-22050 Hz). While CD cannot reproduce sound above 22050 Hz at all, it does not significantly degrade until getting very close (within ~1 kHz) to that limit. On the other hand, tape gets worse with increasing frequency already below 20 kHz, which is more likely to be actually audible. That is hardly "blowing out of the water". If I had to choose between telling apart high quality tape vs. CD from a high resolution digital original in a blind test, I would choose the tape for a less difficult positive result.
As you already noted, tape noise reduction systems are very sensitive to variations in the playback level and frequency response, and turn them into dynamic compression artifacts. Even under ideal conditions, the reconstruction of the original dynamics might not be perfect, nor is the noise removed during loud sounds in the compressed frequency range (it is psychoacoustically masked instead). Unless the recorded music actually requires the increased dynamic range, one may end up preferring a constant hiss instead, especially if the tape is to be played on different devices than what was used for the recording. Such systems could also be implemented for CD (it actually does have a - very rarely used - pre-emphasis/de-emphasis method of noise reduction), but they are not, because the ~96 dB dynamic range is already good enough and the noise reduction can do more harm than good.

True. But I used 88 dB figure as the worst - I could have easily taken 30 dB as possible to gain with noise reduction. That takes analog to at least 98 dB - better than CD is theoretically capable of ( 96,X dB, it is less than 97 ). 
 
It is true that analog is extremely difficult to function right. Tape itself has uneven sensitivity that gets compounded by compressor/expander noise reduction approach - etc, etc, etc. Still, I have  percussion recordings made to ANALOG CASETTE  with noise reduction that could not be transfered to CD using CD-R recorder(s) that have 86 dB specified dynamic range - dynamic range simply too great, master casette tape played outstripping CD-R copy by far. That particular recorder is capable of recording unsaturated signals at - 3 dB at 22 kHz with right (metal) casette. You must not forget one VERY important factor - signal to noise ratio or dynamic range of say 88 dB in analog is referred to 0 dB; the cassete recorder in question can take punishment of almost +10 dB in the bass, which is usually the range where greatest amplitudes in music occur - so, for bass it is not 8x dB recorder, but close to 9x ...and sounds like it !
 
Higher rates/bit depths of PCM and particularly DSD have none of these analog drawbacks. 192/24 recording is essentially flat to at least 80 kHz, depending on the recorder. It does NOT sound as natural as DSD128 or DSD at 5,6xx MHz, despite DSD not being able to go flat to 80 kHz - it starts rolling off at about 50 kHz and continues its gentle 6 dB/octave rolloff past 100 kHz ( depending on the recorder and filtering chosen ) - where 192/24 PCM with its normal brick wall filtering is long gone.
 
Either way, both 192/24 and DSD are capable of supporting mics that go far beyond 20 kHz. 

 

[AKG240mkII]

1. [img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/1/19/100x100px-LS-19d67f25_IMG_4913.jpeg[/img]

analogsurviver wrote :
 
"Either way, both 192/24 and DSD are capable of supporting mics that go far beyond 20 kHz."
Yes, but will you please share the data-sheets of those mics you used with us ?
 
(You DO realise that just your 'nick'  implies some bias. do you not ??
Also : There are valid reasons for using 192/24 when recording multi-track ..
But it has very little to do with what the consumer gets to hear !))

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/em06_wm61_a_b_dne.pdf
Frequency : 20-20kHz .
 
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=item&category=128&item=24035
Frequency range, ± 2 dB: Soft boost grid: 20 Hz – 20 kHz, 3 dB soft boost at 8 – 20 kHz. High boost grid: 20 Hz – 20 kHz, 10 dB boost at 12 kHz.
 
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/
Wow .. Show me the graphs, including conditions !
 
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400
"The Sanken CO-100K is the first 100kHz microphone in the world designed for actual professional recording, not for measurement purposes."
THE FIRST .... 
 
Was that the one you used to record the bat-frequencies ?? .
YES - THE BAT-FREQUENCIES  .
And YES - POOR BATS ! 
Nobody else has their ears tortured by +22kHz frequencies at audible levels !

If you looked at the last link posted, you would have seen the above 20 kHz levels are very small indeed - generally not exceeding 1% of total output of instrument. Yet - they somehow make the difference. Although people can not hear signals exceeding their hearing limit ( as high as 26 kHz by some children and women ), it is possible to "sense" them in some way. Do not know how exactly this works, but it does ; hopefully someone would make a research if it is through skin, bones or whatever - like with bass, ear is not the only path through which we recognize sound. Hope you are not going to argue we experience low frequency with our body - something similar must exist for above 20 kHz range.
 
Any analog recorded LP played with a decent cartridge should have some over 20 kHz energy present - despite this being small indeed. In comparison, the same recording in CD version will be totally dead above 20 kHz (22,05 kHz to be precise ). Real time mastered LPs can be essentially flat to 25 kHz and half speed mastered to 50 kHz - so far, no reports of poor human-bats that I know of.
 
Regarding frequency response of mics - manufacturers publish the range which they guarantee in one way or another. It does not mean that figure in spec is their final limit. For Panasonic (or any other mic ) you can use (Stax) electrostatic headphones (and real hardware signal generator with the range to at least 100 kHz ) as source - and you should find there is no brick wall limit at 20 kHz. These mics are used in glass breaking (burglar ) alarms - because they go high enough to pick up sounds of breaking glass that exceeds 20 kHz.
 
Stax Lambda Pro is spec'd to 41 kHz and I have yet to see it condemned as torturing device because of its capability to play above 20 kHz. Pretty much the complete Stax range is capable of about this HF limit - and general concensus is that (Stax) electrostatics reproduce one of if not the sweetest / most accurate sounding treble - the better the signal, the better the sound. 

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

1. [img]http://cdn.head-fi.org/1/19/100x100px-LS-19d67f25_IMG_4913.jpeg[/img]

analogsurviver wrote :
 
"Either way, both 192/24 and DSD are capable of supporting mics that go far beyond 20 kHz."
Yes, but will you please share the data-sheets of those mics you used with us ?
 
(You DO realise that just your 'nick'  implies some bias. do you not ??
Also : There are valid reasons for using 192/24 when recording multi-track ..
But it has very little to do with what the consumer gets to hear !))

Mics used are DPA 406X series - and they can be rather iffy above 20 kHz. Several had to be tried in order to get reasonably matched pair. This is perhaps the reason manufacturer does not specify them higher - here, each is on his or hers own. But - it can be done. Reject rate is unfortunately quite high, when above 20 kHz is required. 
 
My "nick" , if you mean avatar, intentioanally DOES imply some bias - but as you can see, I am not entirely anti digital. Just against "perfect for ever" CD, which I consider to be too low quality for music. It was max at the time of introduction in 1979 - ask yourself, would you be satisfied with Sinclair Spectrum 80 personal computer - in 2012; how many PCs have you gone through in say last 10 years ? Please note that I do understand there is limit to just how much information is "enough" for quality music reproduction - and CD must not be improved upon as much as typical PC of today is better compared to Sinclair Spectrum 80 - but CD is below desired quality. Acceptable digital would be the level of quality even most hard core analog die-hards would be grungingly willing to accept digital whatever as equivalent - meaning that for "normal" people not so attached to their analog gear it would indeed be superiour. CD will never be able to achieve that - machines to play CD disks on are now incomparably better and more sophisticated than CDs themselves - you can not extract more than 100 % out of any medium. The first digital that has a real chance of convincing analog lovers is DSD128 or DSD at 5,6xx MHz - it offers about the same frequency response as top analog vynil players and has all the advantages of digital like freedom from noise, distortion, record use, convinience, transportability, portability , etc,etc. It is also less expensive.
 
Yes, there are very valid reasons for using 192/24 when recording multitrack - DSD noise above 20 kHz can build up to unacceptable levels with numerous enough "passes", whereas PCM noise will remain constantly low. I just do not see any real need for multitracking when recording acoustic music - it is much harder to do the actual recording than with multitrack where you can adjust and fix and mix and whatever ad nuseaum after the fact - but if done right, will give you the immediacy and recreation of acoustic space that are generally lost in multimiking/multitracking. I agree that subtle nuances mics above 20 kHz bring get lost in multimiking/multitracking - that is why multitrackers do not use them now and will probably never use them. Going above 20 kHz automatically means stop to using multitrack if any gains are to be preserved on the actual commercially available recording public can buy. 

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Regarding 'old recordings' :
A REALLY GOOD tape-recorder has/had a dynamic range of maybe 68-72db .
LP's have theoretical dynamic range of 80db .

 
Even the best LPs generally had no more than 45dB. Usually a lot less than that.

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

 
Even the best LPs generally had no more than 45dB. Usually a lot less than that.

The figure of 45 dB is heavy underestimation. Although theorethical limit is indeed 78 dB, actual high quality LPs average about 60 dB. But this figure can slide for the worse because of multitude of factors pretty fast - and, unfortunately, many times it did.
 
Best vintage for vynil is 1976/7, Pyral master lacquer disks  from France. Try any Harmonia Mundi France LP from about that era. - or French Philips.
It just does not get quieter than that - with the possible few exceptions pressed by JVC in Japan on Reference Recordings label - like 45 RPM LP with nearly 30 min of recorded programme per side that had to be recorded at much lower level than usual in order to squeeze so much music at 45 RPM on one side - and noise is still a non-issue.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

True. But I used 88 dB figure as the worst - I could have easily taken 30 dB as possible to gain with noise reduction. That takes analog to at least 98 dB - better than CD is theoretically capable of ( 96,X dB, it is less than 97 ).

 
As I already noted, noise reduction does not come for free, the more aggressive it is, the more likely that it will also have unwanted side-effects and artifacts. With CD, you can get 96 dB without any quality degrading band-aids. But if you do use tricks to reduce the perceived amount of noise, like noise shaping, it can be better than that. Edit: using a simple colored dither (+/-1 LSB triangular noise created by differentiating 0 to 1 LSB uniform distribution noise) and pre-emphasis/de-emphasis, the A-weighted noise level is reduced to less than -102 dBFS. However, in practice 96 dB A-weighted dynamic range is simply good enough for realistic usage, even with a very loud 110 dB peak SPL, there is only 14 dBA noise SPL, which is not easy to hear with typical levels of ambient noise, let alone with loud music playing.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
CD-R recorder(s) that have 86 dB specified dynamic range

 
86 dB dynamic range for recording is very poor, it is like that of the built-in audio codecs of PC motherboards.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
You must not forget one VERY important factor - signal to noise ratio or dynamic range of say 88 dB in analog is referred to 0 dB; the cassete recorder in question can take punishment of almost +10 dB in the bass, which is usually the range where greatest amplitudes in music occur - so, for bass it is not 8x dB recorder, but close to 9x ...and sounds like it !

 
On the other hand, at the highest audio frequencies, it might not even be able to output 0 dB, and at any frequency the distortion probably starts to increase already before the clipping level.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Yet - they somehow make the difference. Although people can not hear signals exceeding their hearing limit ( as high as 26 kHz by some children and women ), it is possible to "sense" them in some way. Do not know how exactly this works, but it does ; hopefully someone would make a research if it is through skin, bones or whatever - like with bass, ear is not the only path through which we recognize sound. Hope you are not going to argue we experience low frequency with our body - something similar must exist for above 20 kHz range.

 
Note that the Oohashi paper has been subject to criticism, and others have not successfully reproduced the experiment.
While it is not impossible that at unusually high levels (I mean levels that you would not want to hear at 3 kHz, for example) ultrasound can be perceived in some way (not by hearing), it does not automatically follow from the fact that low frequency sound can be "felt" as vibrations, that the same will work also for ultrasound.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

The figure of 45 dB is heavy underestimation. Although theorethical limit is indeed 78 dB, actual high quality LPs average about 60 dB.

No, that isn't true. I've done digital captures of many many LPs... including Sheffield Lab direct to disks, JVC Japanese pressings, and other audiophile labels. I've never found any record with a 60dB dynamic range. The widest I ever found was the Teldec Carmen Suite, which had a bass drum wallop that went up almost that high. But it didn't matter, because no turntable would track a groove that low and that loud without mistracking. (It sounds fine on the CD release.)
 
In practice, even the most dynamic classical music on CD doesn't get up to 60 dB. Both LPs and CDs are capable of reproducing normal dynamic ranges that you find in music. It really doesn't matter though, because the LP format is a high fidelity recording format. It's perfectly capable of sounding good.

 

[analogsurviver]

Quote:

 
On the other hand, at the highest audio frequencies, it might not even be able to output 0 dB, and at any frequency the distortion probably starts to increase already before the clipping level.

I said it can go to - 3dB at 22 kHz before clipping; that is far louder than any known instrument at that frequency, with the possible exception of close miking which I never use. Distortion at higher levels, although certainly measurable, is not so audible as that at low levels - nothing/silence/quiet is present all the time, loud peaks are random and generally too quickly over for our ear/brain to detect as distorted. This is similar as with relatively low powered tube amps that are forced into clipping, yet their clipping charactereistics allow for the reproduction to remain acceptable to our ears - despite comporession/distortion. Distortion in analog recording is far less severe than that of the described clipped tube amp - but perfect it certainly is not.
 
I certainly agree that compressor/expander approach can lead to audible artifacts - but these are in most instances less objectionable than constant hiss. YMMV.
 
It is not recorder(s) and principle they operate on that are decisive for the final outcome of any given recording in the first place; a Sony WMD6C, a professional walkman casette recorder, fed from the properly positioned mic, will make much better final product than nonexisting perfect recorder with unlimited everything fed from an improperly positioned mic.  Better mics and recorders simply further the knowledge and expirience regarding mic positioning;- what could still somehow pass with lesser equipment is unacceptable with the better one - if one wants to take the advantage of the possibilities offerd by the better new equipment. Analog, PCM, DSD - fail to position mic right and it is inconsequential what recorder it is feeding.
Defects even the worse recorders impart to the signal are far lesser in magnitude than those of the improperly positioned mic.
 
When going beyond 20 kHz, it obviously limits both mics and recorders to those capable of extended bandwidth - and makes for an even more critical mic positioning. But ultimately worth it, as it will force you to do it right - and even MP3s, so popular due to their small size files, made from such masters will be of higher quality than those using more conventional recording techniques. 
 
Saying that sound stops at 20 kHz is akin to saying the Earth is flat; at some point in history, claiming otherwise was really bad for your health. Let's
not repeat it, with all the knowledge and science we now have at our disposal. Whether we want to use means available for further development or to try to defend status quo at all costs using the very same means - that is the question now. As usual, it boils down to a very simple thing - money.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I certainly agree that compressor/expander approach can lead to audible artifacts - but these are in most instances less objectionable than constant hiss. YMMV.

 
That depends on the level of the constant hiss. After all, the topic being discussed is tape (with noise reduction) vs. CD, which may have comparable levels of hiss, but only the noise reduced tape has dynamic compression artifacts.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif

It is not recorder(s) and principle they operate on that are decisive for the final outcome of any given recording in the first place; a Sony WMD6C, a professional walkman casette recorder, fed from the properly positioned mic, will make much better final product than nonexisting perfect recorder with unlimited everything fed from an improperly positioned mic.  Better mics and recorders simply further the knowledge and expirience regarding mic positioning;- what could still somehow pass with lesser equipment is unacceptable with the better one - if one wants to take the advantage of the possibilities offerd by the better new equipment. Analog, PCM, DSD - fail to position mic right and it is inconsequential what recorder it is feeding.

 
How is that relevant to the discussion of the claim that tape is better than CD ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Saying that sound stops at 20 kHz is akin to saying the Earth is flat

 
No, it would only be like that if there was any conclusive evidence supporting the claim that higher sample rate than 44.1 kHz actually sounds better in a statistically significant and practically useful way (i.e. not something along the lines of "1 out of 100 people can barely hear a difference in 1 out of 100 recordings at unrealistically high listening levels and in a perfectly silent environment"). On the other hand, saying that 44.1 kHz is clearly inferior and one has to upgrade to "high resolution" formats for proper music enjoyment is akin to saying that there are aliens on Earth because there is no evidence that there aren't any.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
The dynamic range of concert halls is - rather vague. What do I mean by that?

Dynamic range has a clear definition, which is not vague. 80 dB is actually an optimistic figure. 70 is more realistic (35 to 105 dB SPL).
 
Quote:

Mahler's 2nd: you said you were comparing/measuring RECORDINGS, not the real thing. Recordings of 2nd to date have almost all been subjected to
some kind of compression - either with mike positioning not to capture that much of tympani in the finale ( it IS louder than everybody else combined - live, not on compressed recordings ) or by compressors. Depending on hall, it can approach ear pain level - that is about 120 dB - and there are moments of total silence, which should be equal to the noise floor of the hall. Even if that is 40 dB (really loud/bad hall), that still makes dynamic range of 80 dB.

I've checked most of the stuff you linked to (from CDs to DXD/DSD files) and I've looked into books and I've searched for guys that measured the SPLs in concert halls -  nothing came even close to what you asserted. Anyway, if a CD cannot contain the dynamic range, then an LP must sound really noise during the quiet passages.
 
I'm not gonna look into any more of your suggestions of insane dynamic range. You don't seem to grasp how decibels work.
 
Quote:

It is true that LP, as GENERALLY known, does not meet or exceed dynamic range of CD. The maximum dynamic range of conventional LP is 78 dB, under best possible conditions - that is to say having master lacquer with - 60 dB ref 0 dB noise ( unfortunately VERY rare ) and cutting at the absolute upper limit of + 18 dB. Very few, if any, LPs have achieved this - or even approached these figures. There is one aspect of performance in which LP can exceed the capabilities of CD - rise/fall time, or in other words, frequency response. Half speed mastering, developed initially for quadrophonic systems requiring HF carriers up to 45 kHz, can put flat response up to at least 50 kHz on disc - making change of loudness per specified amount of time twice faster than possible with CD. Recent developments have reached even better figures - and top styli and cartridges have no serious problems with that frequency range. Which means LP can reproduce sudden bursts much better - CD can have greater dynamic range on paper, but can realize that only with slower sound sources - on percussion, properly done LP will always win.

The frequency response of a CD is absolutely flat for audible frequencies. The high frequency accuracy of LPs varies extremely. "Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records."
The theoretically shorter rise/fall time is completely irrelevant since the LP has lower dynamic range, huge frequency deviations, higher distortion and contains a lot of HF noise.
 
I rather have a flat FR than deviations in the audible range that will change the timbre of each instrument.
 
Quote:

 
Of course, one can record digital PCM in greater depths and higher sampling rates than CD's 44,1 kHz/16bit.  The higher the better - but even 192/24
exibits for PCM typical ringing on square wave - DSD, particularly DSD at 5,6 MHz or DSD128, is far better here, presenting square wave response much similar to analog, with uncomparably less ringing. That gives it tremendously precise pulse response.
 
Even DXD, at sampling rate of 384 KHz / 24 (or is it 32 ? ) bit, by the admission of its most outspoken proponent, can not reach full value of pulse - IIRC, figure is 84 %. CD is here far, far worse still - it is simply too slow.. DSD can reach full amplitude of pulse.

Anything that is relevant to sounds from instruments and actually matters? Btw, almost any speaker will "ruin" those nice looking theoretical impulses.
 
Quote:

It is true that DSD recordings are most usually mastered in PCM (at highest sampling frequencies and greatest bit depths with floating decimal possible ) - but that is not inherent incapability of 1 bit DSD system, just hardware and software 
to perform mastering in native 1 bit enviroment is still very expensive and all but commonly available. Vast majority of SACDs available have been mastered in PCM enviroment - but this is now changing relatively fast.

What's wrong with PCM? It's perfectly fine...
 
Quote:

What are the prime audible benefits of extended bandwidth ? Recreation of acoustics of the space music was recorded in - those few seconds before actual music starts is all that it takes to convience one that such recordings are simply better, much closer to the real thing. To the listener accustomed to CD these high resolution recordings may well appear as noisy - that is because CD does not have good resolution at low levels and higher frequencies and does not support anything above 20 kHz at all; feed from microphone, analog recording and higher resolutions of digital will always sound more "noisy" than CD version - and that is not CD's quality but actually drawback.

Oh so now that you understand that the CD has a high enough dynamic range you go on about how the silence before the music starts sounds better?
It seems you are confusing the clean CD sound with a simple fade-in (as I've seen on CDs you linked to) ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Higher rates/bit depths of PCM and particularly DSD have none of these analog drawbacks. 192/24 recording is essentially flat to at least 80 kHz, depending on the recorder. It does NOT sound as natural as DSD128 or DSD at 5,6xx MHz, despite DSD not being able to go flat to 80 kHz - it starts rolling off at about 50 kHz and continues its gentle 6 dB/octave rolloff past 100 kHz ( depending on the recorder and filtering chosen ) - where 192/24 PCM with its normal brick wall filtering is long gone.

More assertions without anything to back them up...
 
Quote:

My "nick" , if you mean avatar, intentioanally DOES imply some bias - but as you can see, I am not entirely anti digital. Just against "perfect for ever" CD, which I consider to be too low quality for music. It was max at the time of introduction in 1979 - ask yourself, would you be satisfied with Sinclair Spectrum 80 personal computer - in 2012; how many PCs have you gone through in say last 10 years ? Please note that I do understand there is limit to just how much information is "enough" for quality music reproduction - and CD must not be improved upon as much as typical PC of today is better compared to Sinclair Spectrum 80 - but CD is below desired quality.

Obviously not. I guess you haven't even done an ABX test between CD and higher-res formats.
 
Quote:

Acceptable digital would be the level of quality even most hard core analog die-hards would be grungingly willing to accept digital whatever as equivalent - meaning that for "normal" people not so attached to their analog gear it would indeed be superiour.

Most analog die-hards are closed-minded regarding digital audio. They think of stairsteps, missing information between the samples, low resolution (as you've mentioned a couple of times) etc.
Digital audio is already far beyond analog, they/you just don't want to acknowledge it.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Saying that sound stops at 20 kHz is akin to saying the Earth is flat; at some point in history, claiming otherwise was really bad for your health. Let's
not repeat it, with all the knowledge and science we now have at our disposal. Whether we want to use means available for further development or to try to defend status quo at all costs using the very same means - that is the question now. As usual, it boils down to a very simple thing - money.

You seem to be lacking basic knowledge. Maybe you should do some reading. Ultrasound starts at about 20 kHz and infrasound at 20 Hz. Between that is what we hear. At (extremely) high levels you can also perceive frequencies outside that range.
 
Yes, it boils down to money. Selling more expensive, differently mastered high-res tracks that (would) sound perfectly fine on CD and telling people that's because of the high-res format is one prime example.