But of course. But you can start with freq response.
You should be able to reach to near 48KHz.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
As much as I generally disagree with the premise of the Heyser talk from JA, his point is to bemoan that very fact that taking the real component is throwing something away.
Hey George, what is that square you are showing?? Do you have some AC coupling capacitor there or what is going on??
No wonder, my square has had 1102.5Hz so there is only 19th harmonics
. 1KHz square would definitely have 21st harmonics up to Fs/2.
Last edited:
What audible information are you gaining by pushing up the Nyquist frequency? I can understand if you're going NOS, but with oversampling to give good space for a digital anti-aliasing filter (plus analog low pass), but then again, why NOS?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Saying that it is always true speaks to personal prejudice and/or lack of familiarity with relevant facts and evidence.
It is a fact that DVD-A and SACD have been fully commercialized formats since about Y2K. During the first 10 years of that time, people who investigated such things found that a very high proportion of recordings (maybe half) in those formats bore clear evidence of something that we already knew by other means - they were sourced from:
(1) Legacy analog tapes, mostly 15 ips
(2) Legacy digital master recordings made in formats such as 16/44. 16/48 and 16/50.
These recordings have resolution on the order of 60-70 dB, and high frequency extension no further than 22 or 25 KHz. In short, they do not lose significant sound quality when distributed in the CD format.
Furthermore, to this day the vast majority of recordings are made with microphones with 20 KHz or less high frequency extension, and in production environments with noise floors far higher than is required to achieve > CD quality. There are only a very few professional microphones with flat response to say 30 Khz, and those that do are far more highly directional at those frequencies then in the normal audio band < 18 KHz.
Discovering such things in the field is often just a matter of a simple FFT analysis.
Thus a very high proportion of recordings distributed on so-called high resolution media are basically old wine in new skins and the new skins can't possibly improve the flavor of the old wine that used to be kept in old skins.
One thing about the inherent resolution and bandpass of recordings is that once they are gone, you can't put them back.
The fact that the high end golden eared reviewers and high resolution audio proponents posting on this forum did not notice and publicize this loss of resolution and bandpass for up to a dozen years or more, is strong evidence that the difference was not noticeable to them. It was meter readers with FFT analysis gear that eventually brought this to light.
Sorry George that it took me some time to concentrate on your measurements. But you have the point, testing with that square will show DAC filters behavior. There should be nothing above 21kHz, i.e. nothing above 19th harmonic for that 1102.5Hz artificial square. But it is definitely not the case in the real systems and it will differ product to product.
Attachments
I always wondered if the incoherent snarl was reflexive or calculated?
Arny, can you define specifically what you mean by "resolution" in this context? Did you actually mean S/N?
Following Shannon, by resolution, I mean dynamic range which is similar to SNR.
The point being that transmitting a low resolution, relatively noisy signal over a 24 bit or DSD channel does not recover the resolution that was lost.
Just before I retired I spent about 12 years as a professional live recordist and doing live sound reinforcement in numerous concert halls and auditoriums. I struggled with these issues in real world contexts and set up numerous experiments and made numerous measurements. I've also been analyzing commercial recordings for over 20 years.
Hadn't they noriced? I wonder. For years, we heard all kinds of comments related to how quaity LP pressings sounded way better than their digital equivalents. For too ofze, it was not clearly stated why it was so, but references were made about a duller sound, lacking air, space and sometimes resolution - typical sysmptoms of band limiting. Obviously, some methods were more drastic than others, and price did play a role. For exmple, for the first period of CD, 1982-1990, practically all CD editions I purchased were simple digital reissues of old (1960ies and 1970ies) originals, quite a few of which where recorded God knows where and God knows with what - in short, their sound was poor even initially.
Quite simply, my Decca Phase 4 LPs still sounded superior to me. But by 1990, people were all into the digital format, and quite a few issues were available only on CD, period. A take it or leave it proposition (e.g. Enigma's "1990" edition).
Just because someone thinks the CD forat to be lacking does not mean he's goigng to take on the believers' masses backed up by powerful music industry. Over that time, believe me, I heard a lot of CD players from humble models to Wadias, but I still had to wait until 2014 to hear the very first CD player which I found to be truly interesting and approaching the best of analog sound. Remember, all this is related to my own home system, and I have no connection or interest in the analog versus digital debate.
And it's still an open issue, because in the meanwhile, the phonograph industry was fightinh hard to survive. For example, my current pisk up (Ortofon 2M Blue) sound audibly better and more precise than its predecessors (was Ortofon LM20) and easier to integrate into a system (Ortofon used to require 400 pF of input capacitance to tame its HF, now anything from 100 to 300 pF will do. Beofre, it had around +3 dB hump at 15-20 kHz, which the CDs didn't have, so direct comparison was flawed. I won't advertise another sound quality race, but it stands to reason that if your main technological competitor makes steps forward, the battle is on, you have to keep pace or you're gone.
I think Richard said that for decades now we have been peddled to essentially flawed CD players, although to be fair some CD players were in fact audibly superior to the masses, and I find it ironic that some of those better ones were in fact 14-bit resolution models (e.g. reVox 215 and 115).
Quite simply, my Decca Phase 4 LPs still sounded superior to me. But by 1990, people were all into the digital format, and quite a few issues were available only on CD, period. A take it or leave it proposition (e.g. Enigma's "1990" edition).
Just because someone thinks the CD forat to be lacking does not mean he's goigng to take on the believers' masses backed up by powerful music industry. Over that time, believe me, I heard a lot of CD players from humble models to Wadias, but I still had to wait until 2014 to hear the very first CD player which I found to be truly interesting and approaching the best of analog sound. Remember, all this is related to my own home system, and I have no connection or interest in the analog versus digital debate.
And it's still an open issue, because in the meanwhile, the phonograph industry was fightinh hard to survive. For example, my current pisk up (Ortofon 2M Blue) sound audibly better and more precise than its predecessors (was Ortofon LM20) and easier to integrate into a system (Ortofon used to require 400 pF of input capacitance to tame its HF, now anything from 100 to 300 pF will do. Beofre, it had around +3 dB hump at 15-20 kHz, which the CDs didn't have, so direct comparison was flawed. I won't advertise another sound quality race, but it stands to reason that if your main technological competitor makes steps forward, the battle is on, you have to keep pace or you're gone.
I think Richard said that for decades now we have been peddled to essentially flawed CD players, although to be fair some CD players were in fact audibly superior to the masses, and I find it ironic that some of those better ones were in fact 14-bit resolution models (e.g. reVox 215 and 115).
I think that sticking to less ambiguous terms like "signal to noise" might be less confusing, especially when talking about dithered systems. Generally, "resolution" in the context of amplitude means the ability to distinguish between two different levels, which is considerably finer than the bit resolution.
Yes, noise cannot be selectively removed; Second Law is a bitch.
Yes, noise cannot be selectively removed; Second Law is a bitch.
Not relevant.
For one thing, a well made digital equivalent of a LP pressing has the essentially same technical performance as the LP pressing and is not substandard to it. The rule of the weakest link (the LP format) holds.
Some of the occasional preference for LPs is due to poor quality mastering and the loudness wars, and it is all irrelevant to any relevant technical limitations of the media. Remember that the overwhelming majority of music lovers listen exclusively to digital. The LP is a tiny niche.
If you think that many digital recordings are clipped and compressed down to just a few dB dynamic range because of the technical limitations of the CD format then you need to listen to more digital recordings from other sources and study up on the relevant facts. 'Tain't true.
Some of that is just sentimental folderoll based on tradition and sighted evaluations. People have emotional connections with their LPs and more power to them. But that's not what I'm talking about.
If a LP has more dynamic range and clean treble extension than a CD then either someone intentionally limited those things in the CD, or something in the production chain was badly broken.
The vastly substandard technical performance of the LP format has been documented here many times I am told, and I documented it here just lately. The same is true of analog tape to a lesser degree.
Last edited:
"less ambiguous" is often in the eye of the beholder. Ever read Shannon's papers? What words did he use and how long were the gold standard for the topic?
In our current world, terms like 16 bit resolution and 24 bit resolution are very commonly used, and I think they usually fail in accordance with your definition.
Is this hair splitting?
Right, and you can't put back in lost bandpass, either.
The point is no matter how you define resolution, the SACDs and DVD-As that were made from legacy analog and digital masters were as delivered, not appreciably better than a well-made CD.
Nobody has documented for me, and I've personally searched high and low for a review of a SACD or DVD-A that said that its SQ vastly underperformed the medium it was delivered on because it was based on legacy media. If such things existed, they were a tiny minority.
Remastering can't reverse the second law of thermodynamics!
No, but in line with first principles, the application of intelligence can create more order (remove ticks or noise) at the expense of energy, so remastering isn't completely hopeless.
To me the key word is 'remastering' and if the 24/96 release is mastered differently, not the practical limitations of the format. For example, we have the kooky situation where vinyl releases from a digital master are less compressed than their CD equivalents. If the HD release is based on the master that was used for the vinyl then just maybe there is a SQ for having the HD version, not because it is a better format, but because the mastering engineer didn't squish it to death so people could play it in their cars or iShinys on the train.
Of course the real daftness is that the new Led Zep remasters in HD have LESS DR than that 20 year old CD re-issues. Conspiracy theorists will point out that people have only noted the pedal squeek from the drum kit on the new releases.
So for me I think there are a few cases where the HD version will have better quality by at least one metric, but I suspect these will not be the norm. Would be nice to know tho.
Of course the real daftness is that the new Led Zep remasters in HD have LESS DR than that 20 year old CD re-issues
. Conspiracy theorists will point out that people have only noted the pedal squeek from the drum kit on the new releases. So for me I think there are a few cases where the HD version will have better quality by at least one metric, but I suspect these will not be the norm. Would be nice to know tho.
Of course the real daftness is that the new Led Zep remasters in HD have LESS DR than that 20 year old CD re-issues
No surprise there - one of the well known effects of compression is increased audibility of smaller sounds.
Methinks we have another entry for the rogues gallery of failures of subjective evaluation. ;-)
To me, remastering is mystery meat. I hear the remastered version and it sounds different, but does it sound better. There seems to be this audiophile myth that anything that sounds different sounds better. That's prone to the failings of circular reasoning.
That never need happen for technical reasons. Its a manifestation of art and culture, not technology.
The master that was used for vinyl in the old days was generally so highly tuned to the technical failings of vinyl that it would usually be horrible to listen to in the studio or mastering lab, and when it was used to make CDs, the results were generally pretty horrible.
In more modern times many of the circumventions and dodges that vinyl requires were applied on-the-fly, so that a unique master recording for the LP mastering would never be needed.
In another post I just made, I explain how a new digital mix of an analog multitrack master could be technically advantageous.
Of course the real daftness is that the new Led Zep remasters in HD have LESS DR than that 20 year old CD re-issues
That would be a good example of the artistic and cultural influences involved.
In another post I explain why this sort of thing is to be expected if there is signal compression and dynamic range is reduced.
For the reasons given above, not so much.
Maybe, but I've only come across one person who has heard it independently of the Page interview where he says he was amazed to hear it. In his case, studio monitors have got rather better since the 60s, even if his hearing hasn't.
I haven't personally spotted it, but not listened to them critically. For me Zep is cooking music.
Do you really think our ears have a build-in brick filter ? Just try this: With a sin generator, find the lower frequency you cannot percieve any more. Then compare a F/2 sin and a square wave at the same frequency.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.