Currently, studios use 96KHz and 24 (or 32) bits throughout the recording chain process, and must reduce this down to consumer standards for replication. There's probably a good reason why those people most highly trained in listening don't think CD quality is good enough for recording. It's simply because their ears tell them so.
I have heard that Billy Corgan said, regarding his recent Zwan album "Mary, Star of the Sea", that he wanted it to be the loudest rock album ever. In the process, he has introduced unnecessary amounts of clipping to the CD.
To convince me (and probably many others) that 44.1/16-bit is insufficient, you should record some audio in 96 kHz/24-bit, downsample ot 44.1 kHz/16-bit with a high-quality downsampling algorithm, and be able to ABX the two versions. I'm pretty sure that's, if not impossible, at least very unlikely.
Going further, some may "prefer" the sound of vinyl precisely becauseof the distortions it introduces. These include rounded signal peaksand second-order harmonics, as well as the aforementioned phaseissues. All of these introduce a "warm" sound that is palatable tomany. Whether I like that sound or not, I prefer to hear what theartist intended. If they wanted harmonics they could have used atube. And so on.
If a CDgets a scratch you hear unlistenable white noise; if a record gets ascratch you hear a DJ. ;-):snip:A bit more is in order about error correction. Most errors arecorrected by CD players, but this can produce tiny glitches of noisethat most people do not notice. I notice them. It's not that I havebetter ears; once I point them out you can hear them as well. Ofcourse, the better the music reproduction system the more noticablethese are. (Though contrary to this, the better the CD player errorcorrection, the less you'll hear.) For most people with crappystereos it's not an issue.
paranoos wrote:> Generally speaking, humans can perceive frequencies around 20kHz. The Nyquist numbers are pure theory and do not take into account implementation. For example, Nyquist requires a perfect low-pass filter for the digital-to-analogue conversion. Well, such a thing does not exist! Real filters are not perfect, but rather introduce frequency, aliasing, and phase anomolies. Though techniques like oversampling can help, a sampling rate of 96KHz is the perfect solution, as it puts all of these distortions above the range of human hearing.> I have also heard that 16bit resolution has a noise floor lower than that of a silent, empty recording studio. If this is true (sorry, I don't have hard evidence) then it is proof that 16bit is more than enough.It is not true. The range of sounds from absolutely quiet (achieved only in an anechoic chamber) to hearing damage is 150dB. A more reasonable range to reproduce (from a recording studio to a loud concert) is 130dB. 16-bit recordings reproduce a dynamic range of only 96dB, whereas 24-bit recordings reproduce 120dB. 16-bit looks rather limiting, doesn't it?Here's another view: in music we want to listen to (not the overcompressed crap) the peaks are much higher than the average volume. In order to provide room for these peaks, most of the musical information must be restricted to about half of the available bits. It follows that to avoid compromising the signal, we need a lot more dynamic range than 16-bit provides. Any decent turntable can play any decently maintained vinyl record with an almost complete lack of background noise. Heck, even my mid-range Linn does a fine job. Traditional comments like these about bad vinyl quality come from people who have never heard a decent hi-fi in the first place.> CDs are obviously digital recordings ... to the> CD player, that means "no matter what I read, it's supposed to be either a 1 or a 0" ... introduce reading noise into a digital wave, and you still get a> digital wave -- the player can still read the original sound through all the noise, because it can assume what is supposed to be read.Wow, this is so wrong. If I am trying to read 10010011101001 and there is a scratch and I get 10000000000000 then how exactly am I supposed to recover the original?True, Red Book audio uses interpolation to add redundancy to the signal, but a big enough scratch and all is lost.> Also, imperfect error correction in CD players won't introduce 'noise' > into the resultUm, yes it will. It is clearly audible.> ... at worst, it will read a 0 instead of a 1, which will result in a tiny pop that lasts about 1/(16 x 44100) of a second. Your brain cannot > perceive this.Not even if there are thousands of them in a row?There are other problems with CD reproduction as well, like jitter and single-bit distortion. The great thing about 96/24 recording is that many of the challenges of 44/16 go away. There is no need for dither, brick-wall filters, etc. Reproduction equipment can actually be simpler and yet achieve sonic excellence.
CDs are inferior to vinyl in frequency response
Most errors are corrected by CD players, but this can produce tiny glitches of noise that most people do not notice.
recording artists, such as our friend Billy Corgan, want to record louder and louder albums. What does this accomplish? Our songs are louder on the radio than the competition.
I admit that any 1-bit (LSB) errors would have been missed in this test
a couple more kHz on the frequency range would be nice.
I won't believe that 96 KHz sampled music sounds any different than 44.1 KHz sampled music to anyone until I see a rigorously performed blind listening test that proves it, up to this moment I have not seen any.
> Albums released today are so loud that they are clipping CD> audio... reaching the limit of 16bit. A 24bit medium provides a greater> dynamic range, and thus louder recordings.This is by no means why there is a move to higher bit depth, since an extremely compressed song at any bit depth will sound the same. All the lower bits are essentially unused no matter how many of them there are.
What's wrong in this one ? http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=ST&f=1&t=6150The 44100 Hz 16 bits recording "was picked out very clearly from the majority".And among the 48 kHz 24 bits ones, there was one that "could not be distinguihsed from original source".
Actually, the 44100 Hz frequency was chosen because it allows to store exactly 3 samples of digital audio per line on a monochrome video recorder :
... you hear unlistenable white noise;
2bdecided wroteQuoteI admit that any 1-bit (LSB) errors would have been missed in this testWhy ? If your input is bit-exact, any LSB error must be detected.