You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere.

I have chosen to go the less expensive route with my use of the $40 Audio DVD Creator program (downloadable)that allows you to create/burn 2496 tracks on DVD+Rs as pcm files that are playable on "just about any" 2496 capable DVD player. So far I have only had one friend have a disc not play on one of his players. It even creates PAL discs for the European market that have played without a hitch.

The excitement for me has been in finding a cheap way to enter the hi-rez market and not need a dedicated DVD-A player to make music so easily enjoyable by nearly anyone. All that is holding me back is my inexpensive recording gear, but for what I do and charge (nothing) it is amply good enough as the people I record for attest.

I hope some of you take JMR's advise. It is most enjoyable to listen in Hi-Rez and you may find yourself ripping some vinyl to hi-rez...just because you can.

It is easy, even for me, to hear the improvments that 2496 make from my same recordings also done simultaneously in redbook format for cd releases. Hop on board. For many of you with great systems you will easily hear the improvements.

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

Dang Jim, you always seem to get your issue at least a week ahead of the rest of us!

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

Last month I was way behind many. I'll bet my mailman found something to his liking in last month's issue. lol

As usual, AD is very funny. For someone who feels like too many are constantly telling him he is "doing it wrong", he seems to make many of us happy and he has been doing so for many, many years. Longevity says something about the man. Besides, he knows it is "about the music" anyway. The rest of it is just stuff.

Besides, now that my memory fades once in a while, what ever they review, new or vintage, it will all be new to me...again. lol Maybe it is not my old AR 58's or my old Large Advents that need the crossovers reworked? Probably just me.

nastir
nastir's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 6:58pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere...

Agree fully! Great commentary! Enjoying 24/96 tracks via Squeezebox Touch S/PDIF into a Benchmark DAC-1.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

That is one nice set-up you have going for you. Audio done right.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere.

I have chosen to go the less expensive route with my use of the $40 Audio DVD Creator program (downloadable)that allows you to create/burn 2496 tracks on DVD+Rs as pcm files that are playable on "just about any" 2496 capable DVD player. So far I have only had one friend have a disc not play on one of his players. It even creates PAL discs for the European market that have played without a hitch.

The excitement for me has been in finding a cheap way to enter the hi-rez market and not need a dedicated DVD-A player to make music so easily enjoyable by nearly anyone. All that is holding me back is my inexpensive recording gear, but for what I do and charge (nothing) it is amply good enough as the people I record for attest.

I hope some of you take JMR's advise. It is most enjoyable to listen in Hi-Rez and you may find yourself ripping some vinyl to hi-rez...just because you can.

It is easy, even for me, to hear the improvments that 2496 make from my same recordings also done simultaneously in redbook format for cd releases. Hop on board. For many of you with great systems you will easily hear the improvements.

Having been on the hi rez wagon for 3+ years, I gotta agree. My CD player is really a $2400 DVD player with a 24/192 upgrade board. Listening to DVD-A is a whole other experience than listening to redbooks. BTW, I am looking forward to receiving my newest purchase: Steely Dan: Gaucho on DVD-A

Dr. Spivey
Dr. Spivey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 33 min ago
Joined: Sep 18 2009 - 5:21pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

It was a great article, and many excellent points were made.

However, I really like music neatly arranged on shelves, categorized and alphabetized, with liner notes and photographs. I don't think I can get over that.

Poor Audiophile
Poor Audiophile's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Feb 14 2006 - 7:35pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

OK, here's my confusion. If 24/192 is available, why "settle" for 24/96?. Can someone explain the difference to me in plain language? In other words Hi-Rez for dummies.
Also, what about 24/352.8 like this:http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FIMDX080

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

Neither of the two formats are that "available". If you follow discussions on the web, it's clear that Sony just don't want to go through the extra to provide good music experiences for the consumers. In other words, they view both formats as a flop, because there are so few buyers. My best guess is that less than a thousand titles are available on 24 bit.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

I have not done 24/192, but I do own a number of SACDs, not many but a few, and I can easily hear the improvement of SACD, especially in light of the fact that I bought some SACDs of vinyl that I alrady ownned including Antony Michaelson's K622 which is not only great music but is a great audio science project.

To me from vinyl it is easy to detect the sonic improvements of SACD and some of the newer vinyl pressed right does sound more musical than the CD counterpart. Often the cd is better in the case of Shelby Lynne's Just a Little Lovin...the LP is very good, but the CD is better. MF has pointed out the Nashville prssing is not done well. It was still worth owning for $12.00.

If 2496 is recorded well, IMHO, you might have to have a very revealing audio system to hear more with 24/192, but I would defer to anyone who regularly does 24/192. For me I am quite happy with my $40 Audio DVD Creator program and recording 2496 pcm files, puting them on DVD+rs for anyone to enjoy who cares to. They will play in any DVD player witch makes this a truly universal format. The non-universal formats of the past...DVD-A and SACD is part of the reason they are dead...you must have a dedicated player, but nearly everyone has just a DVD player capable of 2496 playback. Or you can add a great DAC to your current player and improve the sound greatly.

On my cheap living room system (holiday music system my wife uses) I would not do 24/96 or 24/192 as the sonic benefits would probably not be heard. I do use that system to record PBS FM programs I do enjoy and record them on either my Sony DAT or my Sony Minidisc recorder/player for casual listening later on. If I owned, maybe, a Dynalab tuner I might record those broadcasts in a better way, it is my single contribution to a lossy format. It seems equal to the task. Of course I do not know if those rebroadcast of RiverWalk Jazz by NPR are not MP3s anyway. They could well be. All I know is the content is great and I owe a shout-out to rgibran for the headsup for my Sat night listening enjoyment.

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere.


Quote:
Agree fully! Great commentary! Enjoying 24/96 tracks via Squeezebox Touch S/PDIF into a Benchmark DAC-1.

Jim and others,

It should be noted that one can play 24bit/96kHz and 24bit/88.2kHz hi-rez files via the Squeezebox Touch without having to use a computer since the Touch can play these files directly from either a USB flash drive or an SD card.

In other words, copy the files onto a flash drive and insert the flash drive into the Touch and bingo - hi-rez playback for only $300! Plus the analog output of the Touch, while not up to the highest audiophile standards, is still quite good and of course the Touch's digital output can always be fed into a top notch DAC with excellent results.

I highly recommend that you give the Touch a listen - you will be very pleasantly surprised.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

You may have just made me rearrange my Christmas list. Darn.

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:
You may have just made me rearrange my Christmas list. Darn.

Jim,

Don't you have Labor Day, Columbus Day, Halloween and Thanksgiving Day lists? Why wait until Christmas? Besides the economy needs help now!

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

So does Jim's economy!

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

...or maybe Jim doesn't need help with his personal finances because he doesn't buy everything he lusts after...

Joking aside, the Touch really does strike me as obscenely good value for money. Well worthy of Jim's (and others') consideration!

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

20 years ago I would have dropped the money on it immediately, now I had some discretionary money but I chose to: 1.) Have my son, Nick, join the Civil Air Patrol become fully equipped with his gear and pay for basic training two weeks ago at Fort Gordon,Georgia; all well over a grand, but I would do it again in a heartbeat. They are the number 1 personnel searach and rescue resource in the U.S. We are in hopes he can start some flying lessons within 6 months. He has already ranked up twice in 3 months.

2 church camps, and then more money for nearly 2 weeks in Vermont on vacation (his not mine)as I write this. He has worked hard at school this past year and is a great kid.

All in good time. I wait to see what this school year brings in public school. I have no confidence that the govt will do, or knows the right thing to do. This is especially true here in GA with a major cheating scandal in 80 public school systems on mastery testing. I guess it is like HGH where people (athletes) think the rules do not apply to them and they will not get caught. They got caught here.

I am much more prudent now and ususally think of my family before me. At least this year Diane is totally cancer free and has had every test come back totally clean. I am glad for those medical bills to go away.

The Squeeze Box is very cool, but it can wait a short while longer. It has moved to the top of the list. Sometimes life gets in the way.

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:
Sometimes life gets in the way.


Keep ploughing your furrow Jim. In the meantime you're making some of us out here very happy with your care packages

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

Agreed

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez

I am patiently waiting for Patti Martin to get her music ready to perform for our recording for her Doctoral application submission. I am ready to record something new performed very, very well.

I know she thinks this is about her, but really, we are audiophiles and we need our fix, of new music that is.

She thought near the end of July she would be prepared enough for the 1st recording session. I'll send it along as soon as we are finished.

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: August Issue: JMR As We See It (Excellent) Hi-Rez


Quote:

Quote:
Sometimes life gets in the way.


Keep ploughing your furrow Jim. In the meantime you're making some of us out here very happy with your care packages

Yes, indeed.

johnmarks
johnmarks's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 30 2006 - 8:45am
I'll try to explain

When I see a post like this, nothing personal, I begin to wonder how much progress we have made since the 1960s, when people would be stereo equipment based on reading the specifications.

Not quite that long ago, but, long ago, I had to pick up something at Radio Shack, and I listened to the speakers they had on live display, and the little one-driver speaker sounded better than the 2-way. I commented upon that to the salesman, who said, sorry, taking his pipe out of his mouth and using it to indicate which speaker he was talking about at the time, __that__ speaker has only one driver, while this one has two, so this one sounds better. I did not argue the point, but the 2-way was boomy and tizzy, while the single-driver had something like a midrange.

Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

Yes, good hi-res is better. But specsmanship tells you nothing. I was founding contributing editor for classical music of Digital Audio magazine, and my label JMR put out the first Bach solo cello suites CD set that was recorded in 20-bit sound. I have recorded up to 192 kHz. I have edited a lot of 24/96, and made one-off DVDs, etc. So, I have a little hands-on experience.

What I said in my article was that (based on long professional experience), 24/96 was the best compromise taking into account many factors including equipment cost, storage space, and delivery media.

You can do 24/96 on a regular stereo DVD. To go up to 192, you need Blu-Ray. There is no consumer playback format for 352. You need a dedicated workstation. There are only a few 352 DACs.

A higher-quality DAC that only does 96 will sound better than a garbage 192 DAC that is boob bait for people who buy by specs and not sound. Things like, power supply and regulation, quality and sound of passive components, and grounding schemes make as much difference as the chipsets used and the SR difference between 96 and 192.

Given converters of the same quality or using the same converter, there will be some aspects that are slightly better at 192. But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental.

24/96 is not "settling," it is optimal--as a DELIVERY format. Of course, it is usually the better engineering practice to record in higher resolution than you deliver.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the piano recording you link to is a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16. It was recorded at 352. And than 7/8ths of the data was thrown out to make a CD.

JA, please chime in if you wish.

JM

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: I'll try to explain


Quote:
When I see a post like this, nothing personal, I begin to wonder how much progress we have made since the 1960s, when people would be stereo equipment based on reading the specifications.

Not quite that long ago, but, long ago, I had to pick up something at Radio Shack, and I listened to the speakers they had on live display, and the little one-driver speaker sounded better than the 2-way. I commented upon that to the salesman, who said, sorry, taking his pipe out of his mouth and using it to indicate which speaker he was talking about at the time, __that__ speaker has only one driver, while this one has two, so this one sounds better. I did not argue the point, but the 2-way was boomy and tizzy, while the single-driver had something like a midrange.

Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

Yes, good hi-res is better. But specsmanship tells you nothing. I was founding contributing editor for classical music of Digital Audio magazine, and my label JMR put out the first Bach solo cello suites CD set that was recorded in 20-bit sound. I have recorded up to 192 kHz. I have edited a lot of 24/96, and made one-off DVDs, etc. So, I have a little hands-on experience.

What I said in my article was that (based on long professional experience), 24/96 was the best compromise taking into account many factors including equipment cost, storage space, and delivery media.

You can do 24/96 on a regular stereo DVD. To go up to 192, you need Blu-Ray. Not quite true actually. DVD's support 192 kHz as they do 96 kHz. There is no consumer playback format for 352. You need a dedicated workstation. There are only a few 352 DACs.

A higher-quality DAC that only does 96 will sound better than a garbage 192 DAC that is boob bait for people who buy by specs and not sound. Things like, power supply and regulation, quality and sound of passive components, and grounding schemes make as much difference as the chipsets used and the SR difference between 96 and 192.

Given converters of the same quality or using the same converter, there will be some aspects that are slightly better at 192. But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental.

24/96 is not "settling," it is optimal--as a DELIVERY format. Of course, it is usually the better engineering practice to record in higher resolution than you deliver.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the piano recording you link to is a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16. It was recorded at 352. And than 7/8ths of the data was thrown out to make a CD.

JA, please chime in if you wish.

JM

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I'll try to explain

It is always good to go back and read JA's 2009 article on A Case of the Jitters from Special Features.

I'm sure as the Pioneer DVD player show a "relatively good" jitter spec, it is when you add in poor op amps that even 2496 sound can be compromised. I think you can hear the improvement over redbook, but not really hearing all that 2496 can do. JA also pointed out that transports do matter as well.

Drtrey3
Drtrey3's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 17 2008 - 2:52pm
Re: I'll try to explain

I appreciate this discussion and have a growing list of 24/96 home rips of my records. I also buy some from HDtracks.

I do have one disagreement though. It does not take a system of special sensitivity or musical aplomb to hear the difference. My wife can routinely tell when I am making cd quality discs from the 24/96 files. She can tell from another room and over Infinity Primus speakers driven by an Old NAD amp. A typical comment goes like "Wow, what just happened to the sound?" I do not own a high end system, and the difference is clear and easily acknowledged.

On why not 24/192 or higher, for me, it is a matter of hardware! There is a diminishing return as well, and in my humble (but well exercised) system, there is not enough diff to upgrade. the 24/96 sounds enough like vinyl for me to be happy listening that way. And my family loves it because they are intimidated by the record player. Must be all the arcane rituals I do before playing one.

Trey

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: I'll try to understand

BTW, as far as I can tell, the recordings offered on your website are nothing more than a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16.

Have I missed something, or do you like JA merely talk the talk?

If there is a

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I'll try to understand

Until someone makes commercially available 2496 pcm files available for play on any DVD player, since most living, breathing humans have some sort of DVD player (good or bad) at least the market is not making them buy hardware for playback, there will be a lack of mass interest.

The reality with 2496 dvds is that they can be made in runs of 1,000 whether it be with Discmaker in NJ or with AMG here in Atlanta. Short runs are their specialty.

Sometimes the fight has to be given up when the business model is not working. Even Sony's new $400 SACD player is not going to move the masses to SACD. Even $200 players couldn't do it. Needing a dedicated player has killed DVD-A and SACD as mass market music sources. We love it, most could care less.

My point of this previously is that I would think that a run of 1,000 would be reasonable for a commercial label. I had just received a flier from DiscMakers that I thought showed runs of 500, of course at a higher price. It will be interesting to see untimately where this hirez market ends up...as download only or some other music DVD form.

AMG Atlanta

johnmarks
johnmarks's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 30 2006 - 8:45am
I cheerfully invite you to start your own record label

It might tone down your unfortunate attitude.

The reality is, even though it distresses me, that many buyers of classical recordings seem content with MP3. Perhaps you missed the large statements on my website that I have outsourced all fulfillment to Arkivmusic.com. It is they who decide what to offer, and they are not interested in hi-res at this time because their research indicates that their customers are no more interested in hi-res downloads than they were in SACD.

The other reality is, I am not eager to incur more costs on old titles and then have the revenue split five ways by going elsewhere for online distribution.

JA and I are in fact discussing recording a classical "single" track in hi-res, and selling it through Stereophile's website's e-commerce pages. That way, there won't be two middlemen.

JM

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: I cheerfully invite you to start your own record label


Quote:
JA and I are in fact discussing recording a classical "single" track in hi-res, and selling it through Stereophile's website's e-commerce pages. That way, there won't be two middlemen.

The accusation could also be leveled at Stereophile in that while we are aggressively promoting the idea that hi-rez files are a valid approach to high-end audio playback, Stereophile's own recordings are also only currently available as 16-bit/44.1kHz CDs.

In addition to the remastering costs mentioned by JM, there are also contractual hurdles that need to be renegotiated. I am well on the way to getting these things sorted out and I am confident that people will be able to purchase hi-rez downloads of some of the Stereophile recordings this coming fall.

I say "some" because not all the recordings I made before 2004 were recorded with high sample rates. So while recent recordings will be available as 24-bit/88.2kHz files, earlier recordings will be available as 24-bit/44.1kHz files.

Some projects, like the 1999 Clarinet Quintets, the Hyperion Knight Rhapsody in Blue, and the Silverman Beethoven Sonatas, were all recorded at 88.2kHz or 96kHz, but the edited performances need to be reassembled from the session files. This will be time-consuming, so I am anticipating high-sample-rate versions of these projects being available some time in 2011 or 2012.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: I cheerfully invite you to start your own record label


Quote:
Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

A result of unhappy HDtracks Hi-Rez download customers...

Upsampled SACD's

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I cheerfully invite you to start your own record label

Robert,

Thanks for the headsup on the other forum. I look forward to learning more in the near future.

I do not have any problem with R2R remasters being put on
SACD, but as John Marks found out about Norah Jones' SACD...that was not a good thing.

Is this another hood-winking of the Audiophile? Sadly. Probably.
Thanks.

Poor Audiophile
Poor Audiophile's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Feb 14 2006 - 7:35pm
Re: I'll try to explain

John,
First, thanks for chiming in! Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I understand about "specmanship". All the numbers thrown around(24/96, 24/192, etc.)had me confused!
I wasn't making a statement about which is better(at least I didn't mean to)I was ASKING for clarification which you have provided(more or less). "But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz.. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental." Now this I did not know. I do know 20/44.1 can be had with "plain old" cds.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: I'll try to explain

Allow me to throw in my 25 cents. I have a 24/192 DVD-A that could easily be mistaken for a redbook cd, and I have cd's that might be mistaken for 24/96 recordings. When I compare 24/96 with 24/192 the difference is rarely that big. Minute details like better room information or a more relaxed sound are mostly the only differences.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I'll try to explain

What you are saying is that at 24/192 all the recording and engineering work are truly laid bare and flaws in that work are very noticable.

I also agree that redbook quality is all over the place and you have made me aware of some great redbook music. I can say that in my own work I can easily hear the difference between the redbook copies and the 2496. I must also add that I am not doing any post recording mastering of my work so I am not changning anything prior to burning. It is what it is.

I was just curious as to whether the next jump to 24/192 would also be easily discernable. I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

I am now wondering about SACD/DSD. If to be mastered the original recorded DSD stream is converted to analogue for the mstering/manipulation, and then reconverted back to DSD, what is lost...if anything? Is DSD such an improvement that the little that is lost is not important?

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: I'll try to explain


Quote:
I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

Regular DVD-V will store and playback 2-channel audio at 192kHz, Jim.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: I'll try to explain


Quote:
What you are saying is that at 24/192 all the recording and engineering work are truly laid bare and flaws in that work are very noticable.

I also agree that redbook quality is all over the place and you have made me aware of some great redbook music. I can say that in my own work I can easily hear the difference between the redbook copies and the 2496. I must also add that I am not doing any post recording mastering of my work so I am not changning anything prior to burning. It is what it is.

I was just curious as to whether the next jump to 24/192 would also be easily discernable. I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

I am now wondering about SACD/DSD. If to be mastered the original recorded DSD stream is converted to analogue for the mstering/manipulation, and then reconverted back to DSD, what is lost...if anything? Is DSD such an improvement that the little that is lost is not important?

24/192 is no less universal than 24/96 IMO.

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: I'll try to explain


Quote:

Quote:
I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

Regular DVD-V will store and playback 2-channel audio at 192kHz, Jim.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

But mp3's go all the way up to 320!!, which is almost double 192!!

Just kidding. But hopefully the above statement will help to show exactly what kind of misunderstandings hi-rez playback faces with regards to the general public. For the vast majority of people mp3 at 128kbps is good enough. Not only that but they believe that mp3 at 128kbps is equal to CD quality. So. please, don't hold your breath waiting for hi-rez music to become widely available.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I'll try to explain

Jazzfan,

Don't you think that if the industry had not wasted a bunch of time and money on DVD-A and SACD and just offered 2496 psm files on DVDs that did not require anything more than a $39 player things would be better? I would like to think so.

If it was convenience and portablity that won over the crowd to MP3s, does the industry have anyone else to blame but them selves? (Sony) (Pioneer)?

It seems clear to me (I'm probably wrong here) that the reason for DVD-A and SACD was more about anti-ripping and copy protection than anything else. Now we are at worrying about album sales gone the way of "track" sales. No wonder the industry is bad off.

Oppo seems to have the right business model in that just have the player play any disc so the customer does not have to make a choice. Sony and everyone else could have done the same thing 7-10 years ago.

I also agree with John Marks and Keld that 2496 is probably way good enough for even audiophiles. I know many of you think that the jump to 24/192 is not worth it. I probably will not go there, but have been researching it greatly today for a better education.

Biscwelder Bronze 1000M (per JA) would allow me to do just that along with an M-Audio firewire 610 24/192 audio interface and the new super cheap Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio recording program Build 10 which allows recording at 24/192. My version 9 does 2496. All fits on a std DVD-V (DVD+R).

It took a while to get to perfect sound forever, but we are sure close now for very little money.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: I'll try to explain

Remember it's not 96 kHz vs 192 kHz which is important. It's the 24 bit that's the most important IMO. Our hearing probably stops somewhere around 20 bit, and like somebody else mentioned (I don't recall who) 24/192 is more than our hearing ability can make proper use of.

Like I have mentioned to Jim, the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 is (on my equipment) not worth the effort. For example I have a couple of great 24/96 recordings, and 5 24/192 recordings in my collection. By far the best is the 24/96 Stravinsky files NC linked to the other day. They are the best hi-rez files I have ever heard.

Speaking of 32 bit 384 kHz is pure madness.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: I'll try to explain

IMHO it is the sampling rate the is the most important not the bit rate. The more samples per second we get a more accurate representation of the analogue wave form. It is why DSD is at 2.8mhz. We want the "stair-steps" to get smaller in timing width to get more accuracy.

I read one audio engineer in NYC who said that even 16 bit would be enough but he worked in 16/96. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but certainly 96db is enough to work with. -144db is nice, but is anyone worried about the last 50db?

When the likes of the first sound cards and DAC came out and supported(16 & 24 bit) 44.1 and 48, I could not tell the difference at 48, but once it went to 96 we could all tell the difference, but as we also found out from some very bright people it is the sample rate timing that was critical in digital sound. Now. most of the risidual of the jitter is at the floor of JA's test equipment which is pretty remakable. Even the most affordable gear is now.

I think that when many of you said that 96 is good enough and that 192 just wastes storage space...for my systems you are probably right. For many of you who still have your hearing in tact and have great, highly resolving playback gear I would bet you can hear the difference. It may be a small improvement and just not meaningful enough for you to worry about.

I find this subject facinating and have so much to learn and with everyone chiming in I have learned a great deal. I'm sure there is more to come.

I may try and make some 16/96 recordings today and see what I find. Even an old dog can TRY and learn a new trick. I am probably going to stay at 2496 and improve my mics and mic pres and get a better ADC/DAC. It is all on me now.
-----------------
I just recorded an lp transfer of Al Jurreau: Step by Step in 16/96 as I recorded a neddle drop yesterday at 2496. I cannot tell the difference through my computer and on my Grado 80s or my Sony 7506s, but that does not mean that you couldn't.

Interesting though, Audio DVD Creator became corrupted as I tried to burn an NTSC 16/96 disc for playback in my SACD/DVD player for a comparison. 3 tries and it would not work. I had to reboot my computer to get it to reinitialize so it would burn a 2496 DVD+R again. I sent the info off to the folks at Audio DVD Creator for them to review. For a measily $40 it is a great program. It is really not a big deal for me to not do 16 bit. It does burn redbook files fine.

johnmarks
johnmarks's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 30 2006 - 8:45am
Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

Gee, you wrote:

"I do know 20/44.1 can be had with "plain old" cds."

Please tell me, where does that knowledge come from?

People might claim that what they get from POCDs is "as good as" 20-bit, but, as far as I know, it is impossible.

Using HDCD encoding, it is possible to mimic the performance of higher-resolution recording, but, an HDCD is not a POCD. It is a proprietary perceptual algorithm that requires a special chip to decode. And, even then, the data density falls way short of 20-bit. They just argue (with some success) that their "massaging" gives you most of the benefits of 20-bit with lower data density.

No, what I meant was, a 20-bit master tape is a huge amount better than a 16-bit master tape.

ATB,

JM

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...


Quote:
what I meant was, a 20-bit master tape is a huge amount better than a 16-bit master tape.

See my comments on the difference at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/523/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

Another article I love is from Roger Nichols' web site from an EQ Magazine article from March, 2000: "CDs Give Me The Jitters". It is a great read.

The EQ Magazine links are on the left side of the opening page.

Roger Nichols

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...
Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

That may be one of the most clear and concise articles on digital audio I have read. Thanks for the link.

I am kind of surprised that this high bit rate discussion has not drawn more interest. Maybe my hopes were too high and that folks like us who really want to enjoy a better recording are really in a huge minority.

It may also be that most people are just tired and maybe confused about all the ways music can be delivered these days from all the bit rates of MP3s to redbook, and now to BluRay and the video HD formats for DTS & DD that the thought of another one doesn't get them excited anymore. Maybe it is just more sensory overload and they just want to listen to something and not worry about it. Maybe 16/44.1 is good enough for them.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

For the vast majority, I believe you're absolutely right. Mp3 and redbooks are just what they need. We ARE a minority. People searching for the truth, that be in audio or in real life with all it's mysteries, are a rare species. However the audio truth as we know it for now (it may change in the future!) lies in hi-rez if you ask me.

papaned
papaned's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 11:21am
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

I'm sure that there are a lot of audiophiles like me with fine CD-based systems who have read the hi-rez article and have followed these posts but are a bit overwhelmed and somewhat confused as to how to get into hi-rez downloads for our systems.
I, for one, am looking for a single component within $3K, that can download wirelessly from my computer, and that contains a hard drive, access screen and a high-end DAC-nothing more.I just want to make two interconnections to my preamp and that's it.

The article didn't mention any such components. Why ? Are these not developed yet ?

Poor Audiophile
Poor Audiophile's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Feb 14 2006 - 7:35pm
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

Ok,
And does that 20 bit master eventually get transferred to POCD?
Or are there also 20 bit downloads? I have at least one POCD from DMP with the insert stating that it is a 20 bit recording. Would this not sound better than 16 bit? Or is it just hype? I also have a POCD from Yarlung that was recorded direct to 2 tracks @ 24/176.
Would this sound better than 16/44.1? Or does it not matter as it's all on POCD?
I do realize Hi-Rez playback is best BTW.
P.S. maybe I should change the acronym KISS to KISFS(Keep It Simple For Stupid;that would be me).

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

You would be the one to know, surely. If I was to guess, I'd be lost. But is it wrong to guess that since they recorded it on 20 bit, they have done a serious job with the downsampling and everything else that matters? I think not.

Poor Audiophile
Poor Audiophile's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Feb 14 2006 - 7:35pm
Re: Sorry, not really, as far as I know...

That seems reasonable to me.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Hi rez lack of interest??????????

In PMs we have been floating the idea that Hi REz does not seem to be of that much interest, or at least where these 2496 discussion were headed. Maybe I shouldn't have been that surprised, but I am.

Maybe many of you think that Blu-Ray hirez audio is the future, and not 24/96 or 24/192 in some form. Or that no one in the music business cares enough, but if labels can produce short runs of LP, why not 2496 pcm audio DVDs?

Drtrey3
Drtrey3's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 5 days ago
Joined: Aug 17 2008 - 2:52pm
Re: Hi rez lack of interest??????????

I was married to a recod company executive for awhile and can report that these folks do not look at the world as you and I do. For instance, back in the cassette heyday, the company thought about spending less than a dime a tape and make them higher quality. Instead of making a decision, the focus group tested it and decided that the customers didn't care about how the music sounded.

This is also the thinking that led to the 9 cut records that RCA was putting out in the 80s. People would criticize RCA, and the lable would respond "Yeah, but our records have more hits and that is what the people want, more hits. They don't care about how many tracks are on the record."

So the major lable folks are interested in selling units. Period.

Trey

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading