ClaudeJ1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 "It's all about the source material. You can't fix crap." stolen. Unless you are a politician, which means you try and convince your constituents it's ok to pick up a turd from the clean end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 "It's all about the source material. You can't fix crap." stolen. Unless you are a politician, which means you try and convince your constituents it's ok to pick up a turd from the clean end. Oh, and one more thing.............you can't polish one either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 For me, the sound quaility is most influenced by the recording quaility, not whether it is 16 or 24 bit, or 44 or 96 Khz. The lower resolution can sound better if the original recording is a "good one" vs. a bad one with high res. I think we are saying the same thing. It's why so many detest horns...MERCILESSLY transparent. Makes the worst of bad recordings. Dave I believe in listening without MERCY. If a recording is crap, I listen in my car instead, as long as the music is even good enough for that, which some is crap and not good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 .............you can't polish one either. Not true. Myth busters did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Despite the great disparity in recording quality and associated lousy sound of some recordings, I bite my tounge about it all and still listen to the music I like regardless. If I run into one of those magical recordings, great. I'm not going to play only the best recordings, it will be the music I like. Most of the music I listen to is live and old. So be it. Edited January 31, 2014 by mark1101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 HD audio, better than CD. "Better" isn't the right word. As others have said, Redbook is capable of extraordinary quality equal to the others. I've recorded at 24/192 and in DSD. The differences in the downsampled versions...especially from DSD...are very, very subtle and really only apparent in A/B. The higher rates are more forgiving as there's a lot of room for error. Certainly if you are going to mix, process, and such the higher rates will be a benefit, but I don't do any of those things so it simply isn't necessary. I realize there is a lot of passion about this and I started off very skeptical of Redbook, but have produced some pretty nice recordings of difficult instruments Redbook standard I've decided the difference is marginal and it remains largely the quality of the engineering that makes the difference. I am not saying you aren't hearing a difference. I am just saying the difference may be more in the care and engineering than in the algorithm. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Well Engineered CD's are just fine and MP3 files with 320 VBR are indistinguishable. My millage varies here. mp3 is one toke over the line. I have a theatre organ recording at that rate that is as good sounding as if it were DSD. I was intrigued, so I made one of Perlman playing a Stradivarius. No good. So, IMHO it is going to depend on the material. Music originating from electric guitars, synths, and such and instruments like a pipe organ generate little in the upper harmonics...but pianos, Strads, and such are totally reliant on them for their signature. CD is about as far as one can go without impacting them...if you don't listen to such things, it doesn't matter. Squeeze 'til it does. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Well Engineered CD's are just fine and MP3 files with 320 VBR are indistinguishable. My millage varies here. mp3 is one toke over the line. I have a theatre organ recording at that rate that is as good sounding as if it were DSD. I was intrigued, so I made one of Perlman playing a Stradivarius. No good. So, IMHO it is going to depend on the material. Music originating from electric guitars, synths, and such and instruments like a pipe organ generate little in the upper harmonics...but pianos, Strads, and such are totally reliant on them for their signature. CD is about as far as one can go without impacting them...if you don't listen to such things, it doesn't matter. Squeeze 'til it does. Dave Fascinating how many times we have to delve into this subject. Seems there are too many ways to get the end product and a lot of opinions on what works and doesn't. Dave, like you I think I have it figured out. But I'm not talking. Too many ways to be misunderstood. I will say this - Its easy to be satisfied when the music is terrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Too many ways to be misunderstood. I will say this - Its easy to be satisfied when the music is terrific. Aint it the TRVTH! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I also agree with a music server it is hard not to "click around" from track to track. Impossible to listen to a whole album. On a whim: Rather than make my iPad the control device, I'm using it as the playback device since I'm able to stream full bitrate FLAC files from my server. It stays close to the amp and I have no way of switching music without getting up ..it's already forcing me to spend more time on each album. I plan to eventually get the Emotiva Stealth DC-1 and either connect it to my laptop via usb or the iPad via camera connector kit; that'll permit better DAC output while giving me traditional preamp features such as remote volume control. In the meantime I make do with the built-in DACs, and even those aren't too shabby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
consistent Posted February 1, 2014 Author Share Posted February 1, 2014 So if we were to 'formularise' what would it be...expert engineer + right material + right instruments + plus xy sampling = most pleasurable and true to the original? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So if we were to 'formularise' what would it be...expert engineer + right material + ri.ght instruments + plus xy sampling = most pleasurable and true to the original? Ah if it were so easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So if we were to 'formularise' what would it be...expert engineer + right material + ri.ght instruments + plus xy sampling = most pleasurable and true to the original? Ah if it were so easy Well, he left out the right SPACE. Shouldn't come as a shock given the importance and audiophile puts on the room his system is in that the room a recording is made in is even far more important. Accuracy isn't just about the instrument. True listening bliss occurs when you can close your eyes and be in another space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 ...True listening bliss occurs when you can close your eyes and be in another space. YEP! My goal used to be to bring the performance to my room... now it is to transport myself to them! I've experienced it and now I'm working to get there with my own setup. A good recording from a CD can work fine. A HD file can't make a bad recording sound good but I've found that sometimes the dynamic range is better on the HD version than from the CD. Buyer beware though... I have at least one recording that actually had better DR on the CD than on the 96/24 bit version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 .. I have at least one recording that actually had better DR on the CD than on the 96/24 bit version. Welch's poured into Waterford crystal still tastes like grape juice... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 .. I have at least one recording that actually had better DR on the CD than on the 96/24 bit version. Welch's poured into Waterford crystal still tastes like grape juice... Dave You and Mark Twain. Thread stealer alert: What about headphones for getting into that space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Thread stealer alert: What about headphones for getting into that space? Man, are you opening up a can of worms. Large size. Of course, you are eliminating most of the stuff being discussed here, but then there is the issues that can't be discussed. A great set of cans does things speakers can't. However, they also totally eliminate the social aspect of listening. Further, no matter how well designed they are THERE. The are on, over, or in your ears. While they certainly make many things easier, I want to be free. I want a system that creates an audio hologram of another space while leaving me free to experience it with others and move about in it as the aspect changes. For me, cans are an easy way out. I am not looking for easy. Certainly, if I am recording, they become indispensable to de-couple you from the reality and hear what is going to disk. Gives you a sense of whether you are being successful or not. But you are never sure until you play it on loudspeakers into open space. At that point, you know the difference between what you experienced in the actual acoustic space/time event, the headphone playback of the same event, and then the event into another entirely dissimilar space. So, your success is judged by how well the playback overprints the actual space with the recorded space. It's never precise. But I am never as surprised at the difference as I am in the similarities. It's an elusive objective well worth chasing and improving on slightly with every attempt. Heck, if I had the money I'd purchase some old church, warehouse, cellar, or whatever with excellent acoustics and always record there. Like the Chinese painting instruction where one paints precisely one thing over, and over, and over until it is right I think one might reach serious reality through such a process. Unfortunately, few have that opportunity. I don't. Dave Edited February 3, 2014 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Heck, if I had the money I'd purchase some old church, warehouse, cellar, or whatever with excellent acoustics and always record there. Or even an old theater ala Stax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) HD audio, better than CD. "Better" isn't the right word. As others have said, Redbook is capable of extraordinary quality equal to the others. I've recorded at 24/192 and in DSD. The differences in the downsampled versions...especially from DSD...are very, very subtle and really only apparent in A/B. The higher rates are more forgiving as there's a lot of room for error. Certainly if you are going to mix, process, and such the higher rates will be a benefit, but I don't do any of those things so it simply isn't necessary. I realize there is a lot of passion about this and I started off very skeptical of Redbook, but have produced some pretty nice recordings of difficult instruments Redbook standard I've decided the difference is marginal and it remains largely the quality of the engineering that makes the difference. I am not saying you aren't hearing a difference. I am just saying the difference may be more in the care and engineering than in the algorithm. Dave Bsically, it's called "roundoff error" for inte gers. But only the least significant bits are affected. Edited February 3, 2014 by ClaudeJ1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Well Engineered CD's are just fine and MP3 files with 320 VBR are indistinguishable. My millage varies here. mp3 is one toke over the line. I have a theatre organ recording at that rate that is as good sounding as if it were DSD. I was intrigued, so I made one of Perlman playing a Stradivarius. No good. So, IMHO it is going to depend on the material. Music originating from electric guitars, synths, and such and instruments like a pipe organ generate little in the upper harmonics...but pianos, Strads, and such are totally reliant on them for their signature. CD is about as far as one can go without impacting them...if you don't listen to such things, it doesn't matter. Squeeze 'til it does. Dave Like I've said before. Controlled listening test many moons ago determined that Variable Bit Rate (VBR) 320 was indistinguishable from CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.