I know many people have developed a special attachment to the CD format - its 16-bits, 44.1kHz sample rate, and its simple interpolation of missing samples to "hide" its read errors represent an almost God-like perfection. This not only brings a great deal of comfort and reassurance to its devotees, but gives the format a unique property or 'essence' which means it can never be bettered.
As one of the deluded and unenlightened heathens who finds himself unsatisfied with CD, I can only beg my superiors to show mercy in shielding me from biased moderation, and from attacks upon my audio equipment, my hearing, my sanity and my brain's ability to adequately perceive not only sound, but the rest of the universe around me.
With that in mind, I have the following quick question:
For test purposes I have acquired a small number of 24-bit 96kHz lossless audio files derived from DVD-A and SACD releases. However, a spectrum analysis of their content always shows a sharp roll-off at either 22050Hz or 24000Hz, suggesting that these releases are nothing more than upscaled versions of previous 16-bit 44.1 or 48kHz releases (complete with the so-called 'loudness war' compression in most cases).
So, is it normal for these high resolution releases to be upscaled?
Which DVD-Audio/SACD releases are known to be genuine 24/96?
Thanks,
jamie.
I don't know the answer to your specific tracks. I've heard that it's been done before, releasing "high definition" audio that is just up-sampled from normal CDA.
I'm not sure that you can tell from just the band limiting though. There are two separate issues with 24-96 compared with 16-44.1 CD audio. (1) The lower quantization noise, and (2) the greater bandwidth. They're not completely unrelated though, you can use the extra bandwidth to extend the normal audio content into the ultra-sonic region, or you can use it (via dithering) to increase the effective bit depth. In the latter case, you may well still see sharp roll off at the limits of the audible spectrum, but some additional (dither) noise at much higher frequencies.
All the listening tests I've seen show that 24-48 is pretty much indistinguishable from 16-44.1 at normal listening volumes, but I guess you already knew that.
So, is it normal for these high resolution releases to be upscaled?
I can see two reasons why this occurs:
- The mastering engineer in charge knows his stuff and has realized there is no point in reproducing ultrasonics on the consumer end
- The mastering engineer doesn't know his stuff
From my past experience, either of these two is likely. Though if the masters have "loudness wars" style mastering, 2. is more probable.
I'm not sure that you can tell from just the band limiting though. There are two separate issues with 24-96 compared with 16-44.1 CD audio. (1) The lower quantization noise, and (2) the greater bandwidth. They're not completely unrelated though, you can use the extra bandwidth to extend the normal audio content into the ultra-sonic region, or you can use it (via dithering) to increase the effective bit depth. In the latter case, you may well still see sharp roll off at the limits of the audible spectrum, but some additional (dither) noise at much higher frequencies.
Your latter case did occur to me, but if it's a native 24-bit recording, actual bit depth is relatively plentiful to begin with
In addition, one might ask "Why would the engineers just happen to always choose 22.05 or 48 for the intentional roll off point?".
It might be worth considering whether this "problem" was discovered through the auditory senses or the visual senses.
So, is it normal for these high resolution releases to be upscaled?
Let's say it's not that unusual. But the fact that you have 'always' seen it, every time you look, seems unusual to me. How big is your sample?
Which DVD-Audio/SACD releases are known to be genuine 24/96?
I don't know know that there is a list today of such things. ISTR seeing a website in the heyday of DVDA/SACD that did tabulate 'real' format information for dozens of releases.
I've analysed 2channel rips of some DVD-As in my own collection, and there were certainly some with > 22kHz spectral content, and also >24kHz IIRC. With SACDs it's a bit harder to tell because instead of ripping I have to capture those from analog output and redigitize at a high SR/bit depth to detect trans-Redbook content.
Here's one. From Neil Young's "Harvest ' DVDA, which has nominal 192kHz sample rate (Neil Young is utterly ridiculous when it comes to audio) , 24bits
No real musical content above 20 Hz or so, but the visible 'cutoff' for background noise -- the faint purple/blue speckling going completely to black -- is slightly above 40kHz, suggesting that perhaps the 'effective' SR was 88.2.
(http://s15.postimage.org/t6rchimaj/untitled.png)
I've analysed 2channel rips of some DVD-As in my own collection, and there were certainly some with > 22kHz spectral content, and also >24kHz IIRC. With SACDs it's a bit harder to tell because instead of ripping I have to capture those from analog output and redigitize at a high SR/bit depth to detect trans-Redbook content.
You must a have a really high end analog set up krabapple. I cant even get true 16 bit SNR from any of my analog captures.
BTW all. I don't see the OP as being condescending, more just a bit defensive.
Let's say [upscaled content] it's not that unusual. But the fact that you have 'always' seen it, every time you look, seems unusual to me. How big is your sample?
Relatively small thus far - I've been hunting around for genuine 24/96 content, having just bought myself an "M-Audio Audiophile 2496" soundcard (it must be good, because it says "audiophile" on the box, right? ).
I don't know know that there is a list today of such things. ISTR seeing a website in the heyday of DVDA/SACD that did tabulate 'real' format information for dozens of releases.
A list would certainly be helpful - confirmation from the record labels would be even more helpful!
Here's one. From Neil Young's "Harvest ' DVDA, which has nominal 192kHz sample rate (Neil Young is utterly ridiculous when it comes to audio) , 24bits
No real musical content above 20 Hz or so, but the visible 'cutoff' for background noise -- the faint purple/blue speckling going completely to black -- is slightly above 40kHz, suggesting that perhaps the 'effective' SR was 88.2.
Thanks for posting that. Not having any HD content myself, I was interested to see a spectrograph.
Given that "Harvest" is rather old, what would that have been mastered from krabapple, the original tapes?
BTW. You can just make out a faint line in that spectrum at about 30 kHz, I wonder what that is?
I find this obsession for ultrasonic frequencies absurd!
Let's rest on a pure analogic field: what content do you expect to find in music at frequencies higher than what players themselves hear and so are able to intentionally produce, and composers to write in the first place?
Only, if something, higher harmonics of the highest tones they could play, quite low in energy compared with audible content and maybe completely masked before they reach a transducer.
Given the ouverture of the OP's first post, I put it in a philosophical way: I think that brickwalling music at 20kH makes it more faithful to what the composer had in his mind when he wrote it!
Thanks for posting that. Not having any HD content myself, I was interested to see a spectrograph.
Given that "Harvest" is rather old, what would that have been mastered from krabapple, the original tapes?
Thanks from me also - I might purchase a copy of "Harvest".
Original analogue master tapes will certainly contain content above 24kHz, and a level of depth beyond that of 16-bits.
You must a have a really high end analog set up krabapple. I cant even get true 16 bit SNR from any of my analog captures.
Analog wasn't involved in the spectrogram I showed That file was ripped as digital data directly from the DVD-A, and Audition is just displaying what's in the file...not what comes out of my speakers.
For SACD, the signal is from an Oppo 970 2channel analog out, which I can capture at a variety of sample rates up to 192kHz, at 24 bits with my M-Audio card. I've tried it at the highest SR just because I can, but I can't hear past Redbook, so mostly I stick to 88.2 for 'archiving' the audio. I seem to recall that the Oppo always converts DSD to 88.2 PCM anyway, so capturing at anything higher than that is doubly pointless.
Original analogue master tapes will certainly contain content above 24kHz, and a level of depth beyond that of 16-bits.
Why do you believe that?
Given that "Harvest" is rather old, what would that have been mastered from krabapple, the original tapes?
Yes. Not because DVDA/SACDs always are from master tapes, but because Neil Young is kind of fanatical about such things.
BTW. You can just make out a faint line in that spectrum at about 30 kHz, I wonder what that is?
IIRC, it's noise from video monitors or TVs that were in the recording studio -- you see that line on a number of old recordings. Either that, or its a tape bias signal, I don't recall which. (I think a bias signal is typically higher than that though)
Here's another -- Deep Purple Machine Head DVDA. Nominal 96kHz SR, 24 bits
(http://s17.postimage.org/dvf8s3hfz/image.png)
That video noise @ ~29kHz is crazy looking on this one!
Original analogue master tapes will certainly contain content above 24kHz, and a level of depth beyond that of 16-bits.
ATR Master Tape Specifications: http://www.atrtape.com/technical.php (http://www.atrtape.com/technical.php)
Frequency Pass Band 20Hz-20Khz
Peak Dynamic Range 86 dB
Frequency Pass Band 20Hz-20Khz
Peak Dynamic Range 86 dB
Oh, but wait! Somewere else on their site they state: "The highest digital resolution today offers 4,608,000 bits switching per second. Not bad. Big improvement over the standard Red Book CD but it is not even close to sub-micron particle resolution of ATR Master Tape."
So, where's the truth?
ATR Master Tape Specifications: http://www.atrtape.com/technical.php (http://www.atrtape.com/technical.php)
Frequency Pass Band 20Hz-20Khz
Peak Dynamic Range 86 dB
Probably means a flat frequency response and linearity from 20Hz-20Khz within pre-defined tolerances. Unlike digital recorders, analogue ones do not require a sharp cut-off in frequency response above their rated maximum.
I have many AAD CDs which show no signs of roll-off at 20kHz, incidentally.
Dynamic range of analogue vs digital cannot be compared so easily either - the former can provide subjectively useable dynamic range which exceeds that of its digital equivalent, because it 'fails gracefully' above its rated maximum range, continuing to capture information which, in the digital domain, would have simply been truncated (resulting in a clipped waveform).
PS. It would be rather unfortunate if this thread were to turn into "yet another analogue vs digital debate", all because my original post insulted certain people's "religion".
BTW. You can just make out a faint line in that spectrum at about 30 kHz, I wonder what that is?
IIRC, it's noise from video monitors or TVs that were in the recording studio -- you see that line on a number of old recordings.
Interesting thought. Noise at the line frequency of the TV signal (eg. 15.625kHz in the case of PAL TV) is commonly found on studio recordings. I've even seen noise at 10.125kHz on some vintage British recordings - the line frequency of the old British 405-line system.
PS. It would be rather unfortunate if this thread were to turn into "yet another analogue vs digital debate", all because my original post insulted certain people's "religion".
Then why are you attempting to do so (albeit poorly)?
Religion?!? I fear you have it the wrong way around. I guess this is another sign of what uart is labeling as being defensive.
If you don't like our rules or what this community has to say, perhaps you can find somewhere else to post.
That video noise @ ~29kHz is crazy looking on this one!
If it is video noise (and not bias) then that means it could be recorded? Interesting (but not very relevant).
Your latter case did occur to me, but if it's a native 24-bit recording, actual bit depth is relatively plentiful to begin with
In addition, one might ask "Why would the engineers just happen to always choose 22.05 or 48 for the intentional roll off point?".
Typo - should've read "22.05 or 24 for the intentional roll off point", but I'm sure you all knew that.
The last Nine Inch Nails album, The Slip, had a few 16-bit tracks included as part of the 24/96 release, but the issue was discovered (by a member here), attributed to a mastering error, and the album was quickly re-released with corrected files. Had no one used tools to inspect the files, it's unlikely anyone would have discovered the issue.
Now, if you don't mind, I must pray at the altar of science in shame.
Probably means a flat frequency response and linearity from 20Hz-20Khz within pre-defined tolerances. Unlike digital recorders, analogue ones do not require a sharp cut-off in frequency response above their rated maximum.
True, they don't but that doesn't mean they are 'flat' or distortion-free in that range. That is the point, I would think. LPs have a FR that extends beyond 20kHz, but what's there, at what level, and how distortion-free is it?
I have many AAD CDs which show no signs of roll-off at 20kHz, incidentally.
So, how have you determined that these CDs you refer to have 'no signs of rolloff' at the redbook limit?
Dynamic range of analogue vs digital cannot be compared so easily either - the former can provide subjectively useable dynamic range which exceeds that of its digital equivalent, because it 'fails gracefully' above its rated maximum range, continuing to capture information which, in the digital domain, would have simply been truncated (resulting in a clipped waveform).
'fails gracefully? "subjectively usable dynamic range'? capturing extra 'information'?
Ok let's run with all that. What is the 'subjectively usable' range that analog tape offers, how many people listen to the original analog tape, and what is the subjectively usable DR that dithered, noise-shaped Redbook offers as a delivery format, and what is the subjectively usable DR that LP or reel-to-reel consumer formats offer? What is the background noise level of a typical listening room?
PS. It would be rather unfortunate if this thread were to turn into "yet another analogue vs digital debate", all because my original post insulted certain people's "religion".
PS I took you not to be a troll, but now I wonder.
Original analogue master tapes will certainly contain content above 24kHz, and a level of depth beyond that of 16-bits.
I agree about the 24 kHz, although most of it will be noise from the tape and the analogue recording chain. I'm less sure about the 16 bits, since IME tape noise is quite a bit higher than 16-bit dither. Tapes with Dolby-SR and Telcom noise reduction will likely perform better, but I didn't test that myself.
For those interested, I've put online a 24/96 sample of tape silence which was made during a large archiving project several years ago. Studer A820, no noise reduction, straight into a dCS ADC.
StuderA820TapeNoise2496.wav (http://www.galaxyclassics.com/public/StuderA820TapeNoise2496.wav)
(http://www.galaxyclassics.com/public/StuderA820TapeNoise.png)
If a recording doesn't show noise almost all the way up to the Nyquist frequency, there's probably some digital filtering involved after the ADC.
BTW, for the archiving project the client (a major record company) insisted that their old 16/44.1 masters (mostly U-matic format) were converted to 24/96. I don't know if they can easily see the difference between these upsampled versions and genuine 24/96 recordings. A spectogram will show the origin right away of course.
Original analogue master tapes will certainly contain content above 24kHz, and a level of depth beyond that of 16-bits.
I agree about the 24 kHz, although most of it will be noise from the tape and the analogue recording chain. I'm less sure about the 16 bits, since IME tape noise is quite a bit higher than 16-bit dither. Tapes with Dolby-SR and Telcom noise reduction will likely perform better, but I didn't test that myself.
My benchmark for judging this issue is to measure the level of audio bandpass filtered 2.5 to 5 KHz (- 3dB) with 4th order Butterworth filters at each end.
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -1.87 -1.4
Max Sample Value: 1.8 1.4
Peak Amplitude: -84.88 dB -87.37 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -99.2 dB -100.77 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -97.61 dB -99.46 dB
Average RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Total RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 32 Bits 32 Bits
Using RMS Window of 100 ms
I think that 16 bits will still do it but noise shaping would be required.
Hi Arnold, I love to see actual measurements like that. Now just making sure I'm understanding your procedure. You're sampling a 2.5kHz interval of a "blank" mastering tape with high quality (24 bit?) ADC and the above are the statistics of the scanned waveform. Is that correct?
LPs have a FR that extends beyond 20kHz, but what's there, at what level, and how distortion-free is it?
Depends, as always, upon the condition of the record and the quality of the recording/playback equipment.
As an example though, at least one commercial quadraphonic LP system (Quadradisc) used a pair of modulated carriers for the extra channels' content, cut to the vinyl in the range of 18-45kHz. High end record players can reproduce even higher frequency signals.
I have many AAD CDs which show no signs of roll-off at 20kHz, incidentally.
So, how have you determined that these CDs you refer to have 'no signs of rolloff' at the redbook limit?
I use an old WinAmp plugin called "DSP Spectrum Tool" (it crashes on newer WinAmp versions) to reliably check for roll off.
CD content derived from an oversampling ADC often has no roll off at 20kHz - frequency response can remain flat up to 22.05kHz.
'fails gracefully? "subjectively usable dynamic range'? capturing extra 'information'?
Welcome to analogue recording - things aren't so clean-cut as with digital are they.
PS. It would be rather unfortunate if this thread were to turn into "yet another analogue vs digital debate", all because my original post insulted certain people's "religion".
PS I took you not to be a troll, but now I wonder.
My original post was about sourcing genuine native 24/96 recordings to try out on my new soundcard - nothing more.
I anticipated the instinctive rush to defend the holy redbook, which is why I begged my superiors to show me mercy. What more did you want?
Anyway, here is an example spectrum plot of a 24/96 DVD-A release with sharp roll-off just below 22.05kHz (the display range is 0 - 48kHz and -130dB - 0dB):
(http://sites.google.com/site/jamiep84/Home/dspspectrum1.png)
Arnold is just performing some processing and then running an analysis using Adobe Audition. The sample was provided by Kees who works in the industry.
I haven't looked at the sample myself, but I would imagine that it won't be ABX-able from a 16-bit rendering when peak level is played back at normal listening levels, even without the use of dither.
Arnold is just performing some processing and then running an analysis using Adobe Audition. The sample was provided by Kees who works in the industry.
I haven't looked at the sample myself, but I would imagine that it won't be ABX-able from a 16-bit rendering when peak level is played back at normal listening levels, even without the use of dither.
OK thanks Greynol, I see it now. I was just wondering where the sample came from as I originally didn't notice the link to the wavfile in Kees's above post.
As an example though, at least one commercial quadraphonic LP system (Quadradisc) used a pair of modulated carriers for the extra channels' content, cut to the vinyl in the range of 18-45kHz. High end record players can reproduce even higher frequency signals.
Why would you want that?
'fails gracefully? "subjectively usable dynamic range'? capturing extra 'information'?
Welcome to analogue recording - things aren't so clean-cut as with digital are they.
You can use the same terms and methods for both analogue and digital audio, since you can sample your analogue signal into a digital form without loss of information. Then you can compare both in the digital domain. You don't have to make up terms which you only define for analogue recordings, to imply that there is some "hidden" information in the analogue recordings.
My original post was about sourcing genuine native 24/96 recordings to try out on my new soundcard - nothing more.
From my understanding you wanted to have a reason why there are 24/96 releases with sharp roll-offs, which are apparently sourced off of lower sampled releases:
So, is it normal for these high resolution releases to be upscaled?
And this dissolved into (albeit interesting) banter about technicalities of high-res audio recording.
The real question was never investigated:
Why do some recordings look like they are just upsampled? And to me the answer is quite simple: Either there were no master tapes which higher frequency content, or the content was deliberately removed. Or the person in charge was unable to create a high-res master. In any case some consumers will just buy anything with large enough numbers on it, so it is a good business decision to just deliver what the customer wants and cut some corners in the process, if another approach takes too much effort.
I guess they didn't count on their customer base to listen with their eyes?
Average RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Total RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 32 Bits 32 Bits
Using RMS Window of 100 ms
I think that 16 bits will still do it but noise shaping would be required.
Isn't that already a little worse than 16 bit quantization noise before noise shaping? Since that's only a 2.5kHz interval then wouldn't the noise over the 20 kHz spectrum be +10log(8) = +9 dB. That would make the tape about -90dB compared to the roughly -96dB quantization noise of 16 bit?
So I guess that would make 96k-24bit remasters from tape a bit of a waste of time, unless of course you're a bat.
Edit: And a bat who really likes listening to noise + the squeal of studio monitors at that.
BTW. I assume the gain settings for the recording that Kees made were appropriately adjusted so as to avoid clipping at the maximum signal strength that the tape can hold. If the gain settings were cranked up then it wouldn't be a fair (for the tape) comparison. Similarly if the gain was underdone then it would make the tape look better than it really is. So I'm hoping the gain settings were well chosen for a variety of tape content (not just for the silence), since this was part of an archival session.
You don't have to make up terms which you only define for analogue recordings, to imply that there is some "hidden" information in the analogue recordings.
Which is precisely why I've done nothing of the sort. I suggest you re-read my comments in post #21, rather than krabapple's negative parody of them.
From my understanding you wanted to have a reason why there are 24/96 releases with sharp roll-offs, which are apparently sourced off of lower sampled releases:
The reason is certainly of interest to me, but primarily just I want to hear what genuine 24/96 sounds like on my system!
The real question was never investigated: Why do some recordings look like they are just upsampled? And to me the answer is quite simple: Either there were no master tapes which higher frequency content, or the content was deliberately removed. Or the person in charge was unable to create a high-res master. In any case some consumers will just buy anything with large enough numbers on it, so it is a good business decision to just deliver what the customer wants and cut some corners in the process, if another approach takes too much effort.
If a 24/96 master is not available, why bother releasing on the high resolution formats at all?
I wouldn't expect to buy a movie on Blu-Ray for example, only to find that it had been upconverted from DVD-quality video, when a high definition master was known to exist.
primarily just I want to hear what genuine 24/96 sounds like on my system!
Unless there is a problem likely no different than not genuine 24/96. Don't bother claiming otherwise unless you can also provide double-blind test results indicating such.
I wouldn't expect to buy a movie on Blu-Ray for example, only to find that it had been upconverted from DVD-quality video, when a high definition master was known to exist.
Maybe you can come up with a better analogy. This red herring falls pretty flat.
primarily just I want to hear what genuine 24/96 sounds like on my system!
Unless there is a problem likely no different than not genuine 24/96. Don't bother claiming otherwise unless you can also provide double-blind test results indicating such.
Well that's the closest you've come to making a useful contribution to my thread, so congratulations I guess. It still doesn't answer my original question, but at least it's not personally insulting or sarcastic this time.
I suggested you consider whether you're actually using your auditory system earlier. It would have saved you a lot of trouble.
I suggested you consider whether you're actually using your auditory system earlier.
A typical response, which I'd anticipated in post #1.
...which I read, I assure you. So much for trying to save you a lot of trouble.
Seriously, if you wish to listen with your eyes, you've come to the wrong place.
...which I read, I assure you. So much for trying to save you a lot of trouble.
Seriously, if you wish to listen with your eyes, you've come to the wrong place.
I wish to listen with my ears - that's why I'm seeking genuine 24/96 content (again covered in post #1).
But of course, when people listen with their ears and then share personal anecdotes of the experience, it violates the TOS.
Ok, but again, how did you determine there is a "problem"?
Anyway, if you're interested in determining the performance of your hardware, there are more objective means. Have you considered something like the rightmark analyzer?
FWIW, it is perfectly OK to talk about listening experiences so long as they are supported with evidence in the way of double-blind test results in order to make sure what is being said is based solely on what is heard "with the ears" and not subject to expectation bias.
If a 24/96 master is not available, why bother releasing on the high resolution formats at all?
You get extra money from people who buy 24/96 DVD-As just for the higher numbers. Didn't you prove that yourself by buying 24/96 DVD-As which clearly are just upsampled CDs? To be fair, no one can know beforehand that they're being screwed over, but what they can know is that they essentially buy snake oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_Oil), or a solution to a nonexistent problem.
I do see some merit in DVD-A releases though, in cases where the CD masters are so fucked up by loudness war engineers that you want to get your hands on a presumably proper master. But certainly not for the ultrasonics.
I can provide you with some non-musical samples guaranteed not to be rolled off at 22 kHz, if that's all you really want.
Some people: Stop the stupid troll-bait.
Some other people: For the love of all that is holy rational, stop responding to said troll-bait with more of your own.
Look what you did. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=95366)
LPs have a FR that extends beyond 20kHz, but what's there, at what level, and how distortion-free is it?
Depends, as always, upon the condition of the record and the quality of the recording/playback equipment.
As an example though, at least one commercial quadraphonic LP system (Quadradisc) used a pair of modulated carriers for the extra channels' content, cut to the vinyl in the range of 18-45kHz. High end record players can reproduce even higher frequency signals.
Hmmm, you quote and answer one question of mine out of several.
For a quad carrier signal -- that's the one case where it really is demonstrably important to get that ultrahigh frequency signal onto vinyl intact, and to preserve it. Not so you can *hear* that frequency, mind you. And btw analog quad is a dead technology, have you noticed?
So, for a typical analog product (stereo LP not being quite so dead as quad LP), what is the demonstrable importance of having >=20kHz signals pressed to vinyl undistorted and at full level? And how commonly is that achieved?
I have many AAD CDs which show no signs of roll-off at 20kHz, incidentally.
So, how have you determined that these CDs you refer to have 'no signs of rolloff' at the redbook limit?
I use an old WinAmp plugin called "DSP Spectrum Tool" (it crashes on newer WinAmp versions) to reliably check for roll off.
CD content derived from an oversampling ADC often has no roll off at 20kHz - frequency response can remain flat up to 22.05kHz.
No one disputes that Redbook-rate ADC can yield an flat FR across practically all its bandwidth, with respect to the input signal, maybe fading a little at the very top. My question meant, how do you know there wasn't any rolloff earlier in the recording chain, if the input is coming from, say, an old analog tape? What 'signs' would you look for?
My original post was about sourcing genuine native 24/96 recordings to try out on my new soundcard - nothing more.
I anticipated the instinctive rush to defend the holy redbook, which is why I begged my superiors to show me mercy. What more did you want?
I pretty much know what to expect from you now, I think.
Anyway, here is an example spectrum plot of a 24/96 DVD-A release with sharp roll-off just below 22.05kHz (the display range is 0 - 48kHz and -130dB - 0dB):
Yes, some 'high rez' releases don't really exploit the touted advantages of 'high rez' (and did you know, many CDs don't exploit the 16bits of dynamic range available to them?). Yes, some 'high rez' release are just upconversions of previously lowpassed signals. And actually, even if they were bona fide 96kHz/24bit recordings from start to finish, it might be very difficult tell them apart from a Redbook downconversion in a fair listening test, and even then the difference, if heard, might be due to hardware, rather than the audio format. Implying that as a consumer audio delivery format, 'high rez' might be more a marketing ploy than anything else.
Last but not least, if you do plan to 'use your ears' to determine if a true 24/96 recording differs audibly from the same recording at 16/44, does that mean you'll do the test blind, or is that sort of thing too religious for a rebel like you?
IIRC and do correct me if I'm wrong, the modulation scheme used for quadraphonic vinyl doesn't require a flat frequency response, something vinyl (as a storage format irrespective of playback hardware) isn't known for doing very well at high (~20k) frequencies.
IIRC and do correct me if I'm wrong, the modulation scheme used for quadraphonic vinyl doesn't require a flat frequency response, something vinyl (as a storage format irrespective of playback hardware) isn't known for doing very well at high (~20k) frequencies.
We're talking CD-4 right, because SQ and QS were totally uncaring about HF FR.
Generally true of CD-4. The decoders of the day just required a HF carrier that was above some meager threshold. It didn't have to be clean and it wasn't.
The actual performance of the decoding was very poor by any standards, even the standards of the day. It worked something like stereo FM, but stereo FM was a picture of stability and reliability in comparison.
Most CD-4 recordings could only be played a small number of times, and then the best stylii of the day (or modern ones) damaged the carrier so badly that it wouldn't "Turn on the light".
But of course, when people listen with their ears and then share personal anecdotes of the experience, it violates the TOS.
That is arguably libel. There can be no problem with anecdotes that are meaningful when taken at face value. But anecdotes that are all about how someone is in denial about their biases and normal human limitations get old really fast. I can make them up all day long and tell them to myself if that is what I wanted to do. ;-)
Hi Arnold, I love to see actual measurements like that. Now just making sure I'm understanding your procedure. You're sampling a 2.5kHz interval of a "blank" mastering tape with high quality (24 bit?) ADC and the above are the statistics of the scanned waveform. Is that correct?
I'd didn't do the transcription, so I'm taking the words of the guy who did that work at face value.
What I did is filter out the 2.5 KHz interval that corresponds to the region of peak sensitivity of the human ear, and doing summary statistics on it. Summary statistics make sense because other tests show that it in any reasonable interval, the signal is stationary, or has consistent statistics.
In short, I think you've got it right! ;-)
LPs have a FR that extends beyond 20kHz, but what's there, at what level, and how distortion-free is it?
Depends, as always, upon the condition of the record and the quality of the recording/playback equipment.
That dependency is only relevant if we're talking very substandard record/playback equipment.
Once LP recording and playback equipment reaches certain very attainable levels, the very modest actual frequency response, noise and distortion limits of a LP are dependent on the inherent limits of the technology. It's limited by things like geometry that are pretty much cast in cement by the laws of physics. This was all pretty well figured out in the 1960s, and is reflected in the best technical papers of the day which are for example, in the archives of the Audio Engineering Society.
Once the inherent limits of vinyl were determined by scientific means, the recorded media industry wisely decided that LP technology was a dead end, and essentially chucked it and went on to digital.
Same thing happened with analog tape.
As an example though, at least one commercial quadraphonic LP system (Quadradisc) used a pair of modulated carriers for the extra channels' content, cut to the vinyl in the range of 18-45kHz.
Right, but that system was pretty horrible by modern standards. It was woefully unreliable, and even when it worked it was pretty iffy. The recordings didn't last for very many playings and still don't even when played with the best playback equipment now avaialble.
High end record players can reproduce even higher frequency signals.
Actually they can't. Here's a challenge for you. Look up a CD player tech test at the Stereophile web site. Look up any of the zillions of Audio Rightmark tests that are on the web. Now find a technical test of a LP playback system that covers the identical same parameters and compare analog to digital.
I'll warn you. I just sent you on Mission Impossible. But, if you know so much, proving me wrong about the above should be easy. Have at it! ;-)
Dynamic range of analogue vs digital cannot be compared so easily either - the former can provide subjectively useable dynamic range which exceeds that of its digital equivalent, because it 'fails gracefully' above its rated maximum range, continuing to capture information which, in the digital domain, would have simply been truncated (resulting in a clipped waveform).
You're looking at the wrong end. Where is the noise floor? As a delivery format 16 bits is sufficient in storing this information. With the vast majority of the music out there and especially from the artists referenced in this discussion this can be done with fewer than 16 bits.
Average RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Total RMS Power: -98.47 dB -100.07 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 32 Bits 32 Bits
Using RMS Window of 100 ms
I think that 16 bits will still do it but noise shaping would be required.
Isn't that already a little worse than 16 bit quantization noise before noise shaping? Since that's only a 2.5kHz interval then wouldn't the noise over the 20 kHz spectrum be +10log(8) = +9 dB. That would make the tape about -90dB compared to the roughly -96dB quantization noise of 16 bit?
Easy enough to check.
Downsample to 44/16 1 bit TPDF unshaped dither:
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -2 -2
Max Sample Value: 2 2
Peak Amplitude: -84.3 dB -84.3 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -95.26 dB -95.81 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -94.76 dB -95.22 dB
Average RMS Power: -95.02 dB -95.52 dB
Total RMS Power: -95.03 dB -95.52 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits
Using RMS Window of 100 ms
Downsample to 44/16 1 bit TPDF E2 shaped dither:
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -1.56 -1.38
Max Sample Value: 1.66 1.39
Peak Amplitude: -85.89 dB -87.43 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -99.03 dB -100.53 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -97.82 dB -99.45 dB
Average RMS Power: -98.44 dB -99.99 dB
Total RMS Power: -98.44 dB -99.96 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 32 Bits 32 Bits
Using RMS Window of 100 ms
Note, a little careful mouth holding is required to get representative results. I had to upsample to 24 bits after the 16 bit downsampling, so that the filtering didn't corrupt the results which definitely happened to a small degree if I did the filtering on 16 bit data.
Depends, as always, upon the condition of the record and the quality of the recording/playback equipment.
As an example though, at least one commercial quadraphonic LP system (Quadradisc) used a pair of modulated carriers for the extra channels' content, cut to the vinyl in the range of 18-45kHz. High end record players can reproduce even higher frequency signals.
Hmmm, you quote and answer one question of mine out of several.
So, if people come here expressing a personal desire to exceed the limits of glorious redbook, they'd better have the answers to an array of unduly-demanding questions plucked out of thin air, pertaining to legacy analogue technologies which they haven't necessarily even advocated, about specific noise levels and all the rest.
Obviously the individuals making them up -ahem- reeling them off won't take a poster seriously otherwise, which is handy.
For a quad carrier signal -- that's the one case where it really is demonstrably important to get that ultrahigh frequency signal onto vinyl intact, and to preserve it. Not so you can *hear* that frequency, mind you. And btw analog quad is a dead technology, have you noticed?
So, for a typical analog product (stereo LP not being quite so dead as quad LP), what is the demonstrable importance of having >=20kHz signals pressed to vinyl undistorted and at full level? And how commonly is that achieved?
More analogue-bashing and more unduly-demanding questions. Some people do have a special attachment to analogue - in much the same way as some have a special attachment to CD. Both could be described as "religious" attachments, and indeed the plethora of analogue vs digital debates on the 'net often resemble religious wars.
Btw I never expressed any particular affection for analogue, did you notice?
I'll respond to the issue of frequency response beyond the redbook maximum, since some posters keep hammering on it (bit depth having been mentioned far less, interestingly): I'm under no illusions as to the frequency range of human hearing. I myself could hear nothing beyond 26kHz in a test last year.
Some have speculated that content above this range can still influence the way we perceive sounds, and others suggest that the presence of a brickwall filter at a given frequency (22.05kHz for example) - which doesn't exist in real-world sounds - may itself create audible artefacts across the rest of the audible spectrum.
No doubt you'll all disagree strongly with both of these anti-redbook views.
Either way, sharp roll off at redbook maximum remains a largely reliable means of identifying upscaled content published on high resolution formats, and you can't get away from that.
Yes, some 'high rez' releases don't really exploit the touted advantages of 'high rez' (and did you know, many CDs don't exploit the 16bits of dynamic range available to them?). Yes, some 'high rez' release are just upconversions of previously lowpassed signals. And actually, even if they were bona fide 96kHz/24bit recordings from start to finish, it might be very difficult tell them apart from a Redbook downconversion in a fair listening test, and even then the difference, if heard, might be due to hardware, rather than the audio format. Implying that as a consumer audio delivery format, 'high rez' might be more a marketing ploy than anything else.
Last but not least, if you do plan to 'use your ears' to determine if a true 24/96 recording differs audibly from the same recording at 16/44, does that mean you'll do the test blind, or is that sort of thing too religious for a rebel like you?
I assume your use of the phrase 'high rez' in the place of 'high resolution' is an attempt to cheapen its image? I'd be more impressed if you provided a more scientific analysis. In a professional environment, the behaviour I've seen in this thread just wouldn't cut it.
I've nothing against blind listening tests, but I don't think they're the holy grail, especially when conducted in the non-controlled conditions of individuals' homes. And of course, people at home can fabricate the results to suit their own agendas.
Interesting that you should mention the use of a fair listening test to compare bona fide 24/96 with redbook. That's precisely the sort comparison I'm seeking to make (see post #1).
Dynamic range of analogue vs digital cannot be compared so easily either
You seem to very much underestimate our ability to analyze these things.
the former can provide subjectively useable dynamic range which exceeds that of its digital equivalent, because it 'fails gracefully' above its rated maximum range, continuing to capture information which, in the digital domain, would have simply been truncated (resulting in a clipped waveform).
Not true in either in theory or in practice.
By "Fails Gracefully" I think that you are referring to the rather large amounts of nonlinear distortion inherent in analog tape media which increases greatly at high levels. In addition analog tape experiences dramatic losses of bandwidth at high recording levels. There is a reason why most analog tape measurements are made at -10 dB or -20 dB, because what happens at 0 dB and above is not pretty!
Note that the LP is itself notably
ungraceful when it runs out of dynamic range. If you record vinyl too hot, the stylus stops tracking the groove, pops out of the groove, falls through a hole in the vinyl or locks itself up in the groove on either side of the groove. Trust me, all of these things make digital clipping look and sound very nice in comparison! This is especially true because some of these failures can rip the diamond tip right off the stylus!
Analog tape and vinyl were a synergistic combination because the use of analog tape masters protected and masked bad things that would otherwise happen if someone actually tried to cut them on a LP and try to play them back. Note that many things can be cut on a lacquer that look OK with a microscope, but can't be played by the best cartridges that can be imagined.
So, if people come here expressing a personal desire to exceed the limits of glorious redbook, they'd better have the answers to an array of unduly-demanding questions plucked out of thin air, pertaining to legacy analogue technologies which they haven't necessarily even advocated, about specific noise levels and all the rest.
BTW is the pity party over yet? ;-)
The questions that Krab asked weren't plucked out of thin air, and are not unduly-demanding of people who know the relevant facts that every vinyl advocate should know.
Some of us are the people who lived through the days when vinyl was all we had, and who watched CD-4 fall on its face. Some of us have gotten vinyl cutting chips in our hair and pants cuffs.
So far your posts have brought nothing new to the table.
Are we lying in wait and trying to trick you, or have we just been here and done that a zillion times before, going back years if not decades?
You made some stock claims, and Krab kinda gently popped some critical questions that many of us including him already know the proper, scientific answers to.
You know the one about good lawyers never asking questions that they don't already know the answers to?
;-)
The bottom line is that most vinyl advocates don't know the relevant facts.
And as far as the hi-rez thing goes, let me recommend HDTracks.com. If I want to know the titles of tracks with true hi-rez contents for sure, I buy them one at a time and test them..
I did post here a list of about 20 tracks, and my prognostications about whether or not they had a hi rez heritage not too long ago.
A little quickie searching of Wikipedia and Amazon comes up with the following release dates:
Patricia Barber – Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004) Original Release Date: September 26, 2000
Chesky: Various -- An Introduction to SACD (SACD204) needs track by track analysis
Chesky: Various -- Super Audio Collection & Professional Test Disc (CHDVD 171) needs track by track analysis
Stephen Hartke: Tituli/Cathedral in the Thrashing Rain; Hilliard Ensemble/Crockett
(ECM New Series 1861, cat. no. 476 1155, SACD) Audio CD (November 18, 2008)
Bach Concertos: Perahia et al; Sony SACD Audio CD (March 12, 2002)
Mozart Piano Concertos: Perahia, Sony SACD Audio CD (October 25, 1990)
Kimber Kable: Purity, an Inspirational Collection SACD T Minus 5 Vocal Band, no cat. no audio CD equivalent found
Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008) Audio CD (March 18, 2008)
McCoy Tyner Illuminati SACD (Telarc 63599) Audio CD (June 22, 2004)
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD (Capitol/EMI 82136) Audio CD (March 1973)
Steely Dan, Gaucho, Geffen SACD Audio CD (1980)
Alan Parsons, I, Robot DVD-A (Chesky CHDD 2003) Audio CD (1977)
BSO, Saint-Saens, Organ Symphony SACD (RCA 82876-61387-2 RE1) Audio CD (July 5, 1991)
Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266) Audio CD (February 15, 1996)
Shakespeare in Song, Phoenix Bach Choir, Bruffy, SACD (Chandos CHSA 5031) Audio CD (September 21, 2004)
Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253) Audio CD (September 23, 1997)
The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244) Audio CD (February 26, 2002)
Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, DVD-A (24,96) Giant Records 9 24719-9 Audio CD (May 2, 2006)
McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD 3488 Audio CD (January 25, 2000)
I would suggest that anything released prior to 1997 would have been originally tracked, mixed and/or mastered in what we would call now a legacy format, either 15 ips analog tape or 44-48-50 KHz sampled digital. Anything originally released after 2001 is more or less likely to have some HD DNA.
Hope this helps!
So, if people come here expressing a personal desire to exceed the limits of glorious redbook, they'd better have the answers to an array of unduly-demanding questions plucked out of thin air, pertaining to legacy analogue technologies which they haven't necessarily even advocated, about specific noise levels and all the rest.
Not exactly. People are trying to demonstrate that your concerns do not matter if all you're interested in is what it is that you can actually hear.
Obviously the individuals making them up [...] won't take a poster seriously otherwise
Until you can demonstrate that there is a problem that you can hear, why should they? The answer is they shouldn't, no matter how you might attempt to steer the discussion in your initial post. Perhaps you should find a different community where people will take you seriously.
I myself could hear nothing beyond 26kHz in a test last year.
Demonstrate that you can hear the difference between that Beach Boys song band-limited to 18kHz and not band-limited and then we'll have something to discuss. Listening tests of pure tones aren't very interesting if your concern is how music sounds, damn that pesky masking.
Some have speculated that content above this range can still influence the way we perceive sounds, and others suggest that the presence of a brickwall filter at a given frequency (22.05kHz for example) - which doesn't exist in real-world sounds - may itself create audible artefacts across the rest of the audible spectrum.
This forum cares about what you can prove. Feel free to speculate elsewhere. Redbook has nothing to do with it.
Either way, sharp roll off at redbook maximum remains a largely reliable means of identifying upscaled content published on high resolution formats, and you can't get away from that.
Who is trying to "get away from that?" No one here from what I can tell.
I assume your use of the phrase 'high rez' in the place of 'high resolution' is an attempt to cheapen its image? I'd be more impressed if you provided a more scientific analysis.
and
bit depth having been mentioned far less, interestingly
All these and more have been done many times here already. Let's not pretend that this discussion is unique, m'kay?
Interesting that you should mention the use of a fair listening test to compare bona fide 24/96 with redbook. That's precisely the sort comparison I'm seeking to make (see post #1).
So what's stopping you?
I see Arny has reposted his list from what, only a week or two ago?
It's amazing what you might find if you search the forum.
I see Arny has reposted his list from what, only a week or two ago?
It's amazing what you might find if you search the forum.
I guess that people remember their own posts best - if others have made posts like this in the past, and they would repost them or link them, then that could be helpful to our visitor.
Most of us regulars proved this issue to our own satisfaction by logical, scientific means not the arbitrary means that our visitor seems to think about. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of anybody else doing the same.
The beginning of the journey is the music.
The beginning of the journey is the music.
Amen to that.
That our enjoyment of the music may be altered because of some numerical or graphical analysis is quite sad. That people may only overcome this alteration through scientific experimentation and those unwilling will never again see the forest from the trees is even sadder still.
If you instead derive pleasure from things like spectral plots and equipment specifications or think that this somehow enhances the experience of the music then I truly feel sorry for you.
People are trying to demonstrate that your concerns do not matter if all you're interested in what it is that you can actually hear.
They're not making a very good job of it, not that I expected them to.
It's not easy to convincingly defend the indefensible. Ad hominems have already filled the recycle bin (so that tactic didn't work), and claims to be on the side of logic, knowledge, science and/or reason mean nothing unless they can be proven.
]
I assume your use of the phrase 'high rez' in the place of 'high resolution' is an attempt to cheapen its image?
No, its the results of using nicknames to describe things that we've worked with a lot.
I'd be more impressed if you provided a more scientific analysis. In a professional environment, the behaviour I've seen in this thread just wouldn't cut it.
I'm not sure that you would call a "professional environment". If by "professional environment" you mean where actual recording and mastering engineers converse, many of those places have to look way, way up to see what you see around here. I frequently go to parties with current and present AES board members, regional vice presidents, and AES Fellows. Not much difference between there and here.
BTW if you think your comments set any kind of super standards for professionalism, well not so much. You are pretty good at reciting the usual audiophile myths, but after that I haven't seen any good technology to speak of in your posts.
I've nothing against blind listening tests, but I don't think they're the holy grail,
Nothing is the Holy Grail! Nobody has ever found the Holy Grail. We did find blind tests and while they aren't perfect, they are way ahead of what is in second place.
especially when conducted in the non-controlled conditions of individuals' homes.
Again I question your standards. I know for sure that there are a number of JAES papers (fully refereed) where the underlying tests
were unapologietically done in people's homes.
And of course, people at home can fabricate the results to suit their own agendas.
What is that I said about libel? ;-)
Of course people can fabricate what they want to. Thing is there are at least two ways to debunk that. One is to ask people about their procedures in detail, and the other way is to try to duplicate them. Anybody who has actually done the work talks about it in a certain way and knows certain things. The part where the results are duplicated or not is very foolproof.
Interesting that you should mention the use of a fair listening test to compare bona fide 24/96 with redbook. That's precisely the sort comparison I'm seeking to make (see post #1).
Trust me, I didn't start on my quest for truth by calling the people I was asking for help a bunch of liars! ;-)
Actually, there was almost nobody to ask when I started. I mostly asked me and my multiple personalities... ;-) Oh, and my wife had a degree in experimental psychology so she knew something about experimental design and statistics. When I did my first testing re: 24/96 I made my own samples from scratch.
People are trying to demonstrate that your concerns do not matter if all you're interested in what it is that you can actually hear.
They're not making a very good job of it, not that I expected them to.
Welcome to the real world my boy! If you walk up to a bunch of people and call them liars and then ask them to help you find the truth, there is a basic contradiction in your behavior that you should have noticed by now! ;-)
It's not easy to convincingly defend the indefensible.
Its even harder to defend what you already tried to defend and had it go the other way, and more than once.
Ad hominems have already filled the recycle bin (so that tactic didn't work), and claims to be on the side of logic, knowledge, science and/or reason mean nothing unless they can be proven.
You didn't start out asking for proof, now did you? My review of this thread and its predecessor is that you came in with your guns blazing and didn't stop shooting, even when a few olive branches were laid at your feet.
So, if people come here expressing a personal desire to exceed the limits of glorious redbook, they'd better have the answers to an array of unduly-demanding questions plucked out of thin air, pertaining to legacy analogue technologies which they haven't necessarily even advocated, about specific noise levels and all the rest.
Obviously the individuals making them up -ahem- reeling them off won't take a poster seriously otherwise, which is handy.
You act like you're the first gunslinger to visit this town. In fact you've offered nothing new yet to an old, old discussion, and your standard issue skepticism is being met with standard issue replies -- hardly 'plucked out of thin air'.
More analogue-bashing and more unduly-demanding questions. Some people do have a special attachment to analogue - in much the same way as some have a special attachment to CD. Both could be described as "religious" attachments, and indeed the plethora of analogue vs digital debates on the 'net often resemble religious wars.
Btw I never expressed any particular affection for analogue, did you notice?
You're the one who brought in analog tape performance as requiring something better than Redbook. It's not bashing to point out the problems with that stance.
I'll respond to the issue of frequency response beyond the redbook maximum, since some posters keep hammering on it (bit depth having been mentioned far less, interestingly): I'm under no illusions as to the frequency range of human hearing. I myself could hear nothing beyond 26kHz in a test last year.
You're claiming you can hear 20-26kHz? Wow. Either really great ears, or really high playback level. Or, mistake?
Some have speculated that content above this range can still influence the way we perceive sounds, and others suggest that the presence of a brickwall filter at a given frequency (22.05kHz for example) - which doesn't exist in real-world sounds - may itself create audible artefacts across the rest of the audible spectrum.
No doubt you'll all disagree strongly with both of these anti-redbook views.
Wrong on one count. I don't deny that indifferently designed filters near the human hearing limit could have audible effects. I question whether that accounts for the widespread audiophile disparagement of Redbook. That simply hasn't been demonstrated.
Either way, sharp roll off at redbook maximum remains a largely reliable means of identifying upscaled content published on high resolution formats, and you can't get away from that.
A 'rolloff' can mean lots of things. A *sharp rolloff at ~22kHz* indicates a 'redbook' (44kHz) sampling stage somewhere in the lifecycle of that signal . No one has said otherwise, have they? And you were told very early on that yes, 'high resolution' printed on the label, doesn't guarantee that the content exceeds 22kHz. Caveat emptor. I showed you some examples where the content was spectrally not 'rolled off' at 22khz and I could show you some where it was. More news: some remasters are less 'high fidelity' than their previous issues. And you can put a cracker jack ring in a Tiffany box, too.
I assume your use of the phrase 'high rez' in the place of 'high resolution' is an attempt to cheapen its image?
Er, no, it's just a common abbreviation, and not typically considered derogatory. Heck, Audio Asylum -- you know it, right? audiophile web hangout? disdains Redbook, dotes on SACD, DVD-A etc? -- calls its high-resolution audio subforum the 'High-Rez Highway'. You want to go complain to them about disrespect?
I'd be more impressed if you provided a more scientific analysis. In a professional environment, the behaviour I've seen in this thread just wouldn't cut it.
Go read your post #1 again, honcho.
I've nothing against blind listening tests, but I don't think they're the holy grail, especially when conducted in the non-controlled conditions of individuals' homes. And of course, people at home can fabricate the results to suit their own agendas.
Blinding is a protocol prerequisite for a professional research report abotu audible difference, if you hope to get it published, so, sorry, in that sense, it certainly is a 'holy grail', whether you think so or not.
As for informal blind tests, the caveats you cite are also true of sighted ones -- with the added sauce that a sighted test, done in all honestly and with the best intentions and practices, remains *inherently* flawed.
Interesting that you should mention the use of a fair listening test to compare bona fide 24/96 with redbook. That's precisely the sort comparison I'm seeking to make (see post #1).
Is that what you're seeking? Then do tell us how you plan to make it fair. We can help you out there.
You act like you're the first gunslinger to visit this town. In fact you've offered nothing new yet to an old, old discussion, and your standard issue skepticism is being met with standard issue replies -- hardly 'plucked out of thin air'.
Well, I'll take skepticism over dogmatic defensiveness any day, thanks very much.
To me, a sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Those who are always dead sure about everything they believe and about everything they are doing in their life frequently turn out to be idiots.
However, a spectrum analysis of their content always shows a sharp roll-off at either 22050Hz or 24000Hz, suggesting that these releases are nothing more than upscaled versions of previous 16-bit 44.1 or 48kHz releases (complete with the so-called 'loudness war' compression in most cases).
Do you think that the microphones used to capture the music had an unlimited frequency range/response?
When you have SACDs/DVD-As with content above 22/24kHz, how do you tell that it was properly captured by the microphone and that it faithfully reflects the sound being captured (when you can't hear it and compare it to the real instrument)? They could just push the base signal through an overdrive effect (without any low-pass filter) and use the resulting garbage above 22kHz as the filler for these hi-res formats (so that obsessed people see "the stuff" on the spectrogram and feel good about it).
Once LP recording and playback equipment reaches certain very attainable levels, the very modest actual frequency response, noise and distortion limits of a LP are dependent on the inherent limits of the technology. It's limited by things like geometry that are pretty much cast in cement by the laws of physics. This was all pretty well figured out in the 1960s, and is reflected in the best technical papers of the day which are for example, in the archives of the Audio Engineering Society.
Once the inherent limits of vinyl were determined by scientific means, the recorded media industry wisely decided that LP technology was a dead end, and essentially chucked it and went on to digital.
Same thing happened with analog tape.
Example:
At the 3 inch radius of a LP, a groove is about 19 inches long. Now, lets put a 30 KHz carrier on this track. Each cycle of the 30 KHz is 0.63 thousandths of an inch long in the track. (lets ignore for a second the fact that the sidebands of the music on the back channels are encoded at frequencies of up to 50 KHz which is a 0.38 thousandths long wave). Now, one of the sharpest radii I've ever heard of being used on a cartridge is 4 micrometers which is 0.000158 inch or 0.16 thousandths of an inch. This is more than 1/3 of the length of the 30 KHz wave on the LP. To understand this, take a piece of regular 8.5 x 11 inch paper and draw a sine wave on it the long way. 1/3 of 11 inches is about 3.67 inches so find something round and about that diameter that you can slide over your picture of a sine wave. like a tuna fish can.
How well does a tuna fish can follow our sine wave on a regular piece of paper? Not so well. The first thing we see is that the tuna fish can cannot track the inside of the peaks of the sine wave, to say the very least! This means that tracking of our 30 KHz sine wave will be attenuated and that it will also have a lot of harmonic distortion. This is all because it can't fit into the peaks very well.
To quantify this, my tuna can could only track 3 inches into a peak that was 3.5 inches high. The loss due to radius effects was about 14% which is close to the amount of nonlinear distortion we would measure in the real world.
This is just one of many examples of why the LP format is fundamentally flawed at the geometric level. Sure you can make the stylus even smaller, but the wear on the LP with even 1 gram tracking forces is excessive.
Discussion of detals of modern high performance LP stylii (http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=22894)
However, a spectrum analysis of their content always shows a sharp roll-off at either 22050Hz or 24000Hz, suggesting that these releases are nothing more than upscaled versions of previous 16-bit 44.1 or 48kHz releases (complete with the so-called 'loudness war' compression in most cases).
Do you think that the microphones used to capture the music had an unlimited frequency range/response?
Even more daunting is the loss of high frequencies in the air.
Everybody should try this online calculator:
Online calculatorof attentuation of HF sound (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm)
For 40 KHz and pretty normal looking temperature and humidity, I get 40 dB per 100 feet.
This is huge!No mic can pick up sound that has been attenuated like this with any degree of fidelity!
You act like you're the first gunslinger to visit this town. In fact you've offered nothing new yet to an old, old discussion, and your standard issue skepticism is being met with standard issue replies -- hardly 'plucked out of thin air'.
Well, I'll take skepticism over dogmatic defensiveness any day, thanks very much.
To me, a sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Those who are always dead sure about everything they believe and about everything they are doing in their life frequently turn out to be idiots.
You seem very sure that we are either lying, closed-minded, or just plain wrong. ;-)
I think that you just aren't well-informed. Yet! ;-)
Example:
At the 3 inch radius of a LP, a groove is about 19 inches long. Now, lets <truncate for brevity>
[sceptic-mode]You're just trying to obfuscate your replies to my baseless assertions with long-winded maths. Clearly this shows you are being dogmatically defensive.[/sceptic-mode]
Strange definitions abound: dogmatism, religion and now skepticism. Funny how people who demand objective evidence for proof of falsifiable claims are being branded as religious and dogmatic by "skeptics".
So, if someone came here claming that the world is flat, and we offered proof that it is not, does that make us closed-minded?
You act like you're the first gunslinger to visit this town. In fact you've offered nothing new yet to an old, old discussion, and your standard issue skepticism is being met with standard issue replies -- hardly 'plucked out of thin air'.
Well, I'll take skepticism over dogmatic defensiveness any day, thanks very much.
To me, a sign of intelligence is that you are constantly wondering. Those who are always dead sure about everything they believe and about everything they are doing in their life frequently turn out to be idiots.
Seems like the skepticism most appropriate here would be of your own understanding of the subject. Clearly you're out of your depth. I recommend shutting that trap of yours and paying attention to the people trying to help you. You'll never learn anything if you assume you already know everything.
Just to pile on, the 26 KHz hearing claim has to be bogus. It's like saying you can see gamma rays. If it's not a typo, then the test must've been flawed. First, exactly what chain of sound-generating and audio playback equipment were you using that is even capable of producing and preserving such frequencies? Many amps, speakers and headphones roll off above 20 KHz. Second, what did you do to test and control for aliasing? It's quite common for audio setups to produce audible "ghost"-frequency tones when playing a higher-frequency, inaudible tone.
So, if someone came here claming that the world is flat, and we offered proof that it is not, does that make us closed-minded?
Our belief in a round earth would make us appear to be narrow minded in his eyes if he was closed-minded and wasn't interested in 2-way communication.
You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't. 24bits/96kHz is pointless as a consumer delivery format, since it has not been shown that it offers audible benefits. Take a look at xiphmont's musings about releasing music as high-res audio (http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html).
@OP: Coherent points to your *argument* or bugger off. Progressing from condescension to insults does not count as coherence.
Then again, you supposedly weren't interested in the whole argument...I suppose you're not interested in it as an argument, more as an opportunity to be mildly irritating. Please prove me wrong (I'm not holding out hope...)
You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't.
Circular reasoning. Here's another example:
"God does not exist because we believe He does, but because it is yet unproven that He doesn't."
I see the old biased moderation is now in full swing too.
Hypothesis: High-res audio is audibly superior to CD audio.
Null hypothesis: High-res audio is not audibly superior to CD audio.
Note that many modern hypothesis tests do not actually prove a hypothesis, but rather disprove a null hypothesis.
Despite experimentation, we still fail to reject the null hypothesis.
This is not circular reasoning, this is fundamental science. There is no credible evidence with which to advance our hypothesis.
As you appear to not comprehend the mechanics of real science, here's a resource for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)
It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).
It's true, I am a believer. I believe in Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science).
Science tells me objects which have mass attract each other, and can bounce off of each other. Science tells me that the movements of the bouncing particles which constitute air are caught by my ears and processed by my brain. Science tells me that neither of those human body parts are perfect, and that I can determine their limitations. Science tells me that I can record the air movements with an electric circuit, again with certain limitations. Science tells me I can build a circuit which performance exceeds those of my auditory system. Science tells me that I can build a machine which uses moving charges to process information. Science tells me that these machines can process the recorded air movements in such way that only the parts which I know my ears and brain can process are kept.
Clever people spent many years of their lives thinking about these things and providing falsifiable evidence that all of these ideas are very likely. This lead to the invention of digital audio, and to the definition of your loathed redbook standard. It is not something people made up out of thin air. It's all based on a method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) which the disciples of this religion developed over time, going back hundreds of years.
I cannot expect everyone to believe in my religion, and I'm not forcing you to believe in it. But I am a believer, as are probably many of the regulars here. We're stuck in this religion. So we have a real hard time to understand reasoning and arguments which are based on beliefs outside of our religion. So I beg you, please bear with us and try to formulate your ideas in a way we can understand. Enlighten us!
EDIT: Thank you, Canar, for bringing the point across in a more brief and coherent manner.
EDIT: Thank you, Canar, for bringing the point across in a more brief and coherent manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_parsimony)
Jamie: At this time, what is it that you're looking to get out of this thread? What is your desired conclusion? You originally asked for any known cases where high-res releases have been filtered or are otherwise not as advertised, and I believe you were provided a couple of cases which you either thanklessly accepted or thanklessly dismissed. You seemed interested in true, un-filtered samples, which I offered to provide, and you made no indication that you want those samples.
So...what is this? What is the purpose?
You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't.
Circular reasoning. Here's another example:
"God does not exist because we believe He does, but because it is yet unproven that He doesn't."
The logical error here is that we're not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Or maybe from Jamie's view point of view, HD Audio is like a deity to him. ;-)
As far as most of us are concerned, we hope that HD Audio makes music sound more lifelike. We hope that this benefit does not happen with just one recording out of 10,000, but happens most of the time. Trouble is, it doesn't. It doesn't happen even once out of 20 recordings.
So to summarise, Canar and Kohlrabi both undoubtedly speak for science, and according to them science says "yes I absolutely undoubtedly approve" to redbook. 16/44 sits atop a very tall mountain of centuries' worth of human knowledge and scientific enlightenment, its certificate of perfection backed by dozens of our greatest minds and stained with their blood, sweat and tears.
To attack redbook in any way, shape or form is akin to denying the existence of our sun, attacking Darwin's theory of evolution, or to endorsing the flat earth theory.
Up until now, I'd grown up believing in the idea that anyone who abandons doubt abandons the entire process of intellectual curiosity and progress to knowledge and wisdom. I'd always welcomed open-minded debate, remained humble in the face of opposing viewpoints, and refrained from becoming conceited, dogmatic and/or hostile toward those who harboured them. I'd even passed all of my exams.
But they've made the position clear, and so I've made two things - a dunce cap with "deaf and/or deluded" stamped on it, and a nice golden rosette which reads "Proper Scientific" - I'm ready put the dunce cap on my head, and to stick the golden rosette on my little redbook - so all they have to do now is convincingly prove it.
You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.
You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.
For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.
So to summarise, Canar and Kohlrabi both undoubtedly speak for science, and according to them science says "yes I absolutely undoubtedly approve" to redbook. 16/44 sits atop a very tall mountain of centuries' worth of human knowledge and scientific enlightenment, its certificate of perfection backed by dozens of our greatest minds and stained with their blood, sweat and tears.
To attack redbook in any way, shape or form is akin to denying the existence of our sun, attacking Darwin's theory of evolution, or to endorsing the flat earth theory.
Up until now, I'd grown up believing in the idea that anyone who abandons doubt abandons the entire process of intellectual curiosity and progress to knowledge and wisdom. I'd always welcomed open-minded debate, remained humble in the face of opposing viewpoints, and refrained from becoming conceited, dogmatic and/or hostile toward those who harboured them. I'd even passed all of my exams.
But they've made the position clear, and so I've made two things - a dunce cap with "deaf and/or deluded" stamped on it, and a nice golden rosette which reads "Proper Scientific" - I'm ready put the dunce cap on my head, and to stick the golden rosette on my little redbook - so all they have to do now is convincingly prove it.
The above is passive-aggressive BS.
Reality is the following: None of us owe Redbook anything. We'd all like to see something better.
So, here's the challenge for you Jamie my boy - tell us about something that reliably sounds better then Redbook.
You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.
You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.
For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.
I hate this thread so much.
Jamie: At this time, what is it that you're looking to get out of this thread? What is your desired conclusion? You originally asked for any known cases where high-res releases have been filtered or are otherwise not as advertised, and I believe you were provided a couple of cases which you either thanklessly accepted or thanklessly dismissed. You seemed interested in true, un-filtered samples, which I offered to provide, and you made no indication that you want those samples.
So...what is this? What is the purpose?
Utter attention-seeking and feeding of his own ego through people continuing to bother to respond to his infantile tantrums and insults. An exercise in how far one can not only continue to fail to provide evidence for one’s own position (or even a coherent summary thereof) but also compound one’s own logical failure by resorting to (1) clichéd imagery and disparagements and (2) a dissonant mixture of persecution complex and rampant egotism.
In short, a load of crap.
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.
He doesn't, or he's trolling, or both. And add a nice thick layer of martyr complex on top of all that. He imagines himself the Galileo figure here, with us as the Church. Science depends on Galileo-like contrarians to make occasional leaps. But what he forgets is that the vast majority of contrarians aren't Galileos...they're just wrong. Or, if more persistently wrong, cranks. History usually forgets them too.
Jamie seems to think that the scientific method is a matter of opinion. That's about the only thing I am getting out of his repeated insistence that Canar's posts are "theses."
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.
I believe Jamie is trying to express a distaste for the idea that things can be known. I cannot speculate why one would rationally hold that position unless it is to troll the interwebs.
I hate this thread so much.
Well, seeing that this is just drifting offtopic into a direction of "science vs. ignorance", I'm all for ending or moving this discussion into the appropriate forum, soon. This is not general audio anymore. Jamie has never shown that he is interested to discuss his points (which are what exactly, anyway?) in a mature and appropriate manner.
You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.
You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.
For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Why don't you read some of the posted links? Take a gander at the Meyer and Moran study whilst you're at it.
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Back in 2000 or so I made a number of 24/96 recordings of music and other natural sounds using expensive professional microphones with >40 KHz bandpass, a highly regarded mic preamp (Benchmark Media) and a highly regarded 24/96 audio interface - the CardDeluxe (which has been highly reviewed by Stereophile). The recordings were made in situations where the actual dynamic range of the recordings was > 85 dB and as high or higher than
any commercial SACD or DVD-A recording that I have been able to find. The recordings have significant natural content > 20 KHz.
I set up a number of ABX tests comparing these recordings to the same recording that had been downsampled to 16/44. My listeners were experienced audiophiles and engineers of all ages. 100's of trials were run.
I purchased at my own expense a Domain (www.pcabx.com), and web site with 600 megabytes of online space. I posted my files there, publiczed its existance including mention on a number of relevant audio and audio production forums, obtained favorable mention on other influential high-traffic professional audio and audiophile web sites, and provided all of the software and listed the hardware that would be required for people to do their own tests. I provided step by step instructions on how to do the tests for yourself.
Tens of thousands of copies of my files were downloaded over a period of maybe 4-5 years.
Nobody has ever reported reliable detection of any audible differences. Not any of my testers, not any of the people from the web.
I cannot speculate why one would rationally hold that position unless it is to troll the interwebs.
88% of trolls are actually just morons (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/88-of-trolls-actually-just-morons-2012061330281)