SY said:
Howdy - yes, that's true, but there seems to be a fair amount of debate as to the distribution and amplitude needed for the dither as well (i.e. theoretically, triangular distribution with 0.5 lsb amplitude) - but I've seen some people swearing by amplitudes closer to 0.9... so perhaps there's still some fair research needed to really get the 'facts' right for what the ear wishes to hear...
Cheers
Clem
Hi Pavel,
In your experience then, do these well implemented DACs result in significantly more space and air when playing the same CD compared to a typical current commercial player?
My only external DAC reference is the original MSB, ca. 1999, which I am now running fed from a cheap transport. But to be honest it does not sound significantly better than an equally cheap, current Philips DVD player using its internal DAC (and so lightweight that I suspect an SMPS inside).
In your experience then, do these well implemented DACs result in significantly more space and air when playing the same CD compared to a typical current commercial player?
My only external DAC reference is the original MSB, ca. 1999, which I am now running fed from a cheap transport. But to be honest it does not sound significantly better than an equally cheap, current Philips DVD player using its internal DAC (and so lightweight that I suspect an SMPS inside).
MBK said:
Hi MBK,
I would be very careful in assessing air and space. In my experience, these attributes can be easily influenced by HF interference, for example, and we may speak about pseudospace and pseudoair.
In my experience the good DAC brings significant clarity and sonic resolution (resolution of instruments in big orchestra, for example).
lumanauw said:Hi, Guido,
Thanks for the info
I spotted this :
If CD audio format is actually comes from various limitations, size limitation, storage time limitation, bit limitation, then it must be compromizing the audio stuffed inside?
Yes, it is compromizing the audio, like with any storage principle. Main issue is in what extent the perceived quality suffers.
Pavel,
Good point. I suspect, and that was a bit the message of my previous post, that most space and air comes from delay/phase, and in that respect, is influenced mostly by speaker radiation patterns and placement. This assuming the system is of decent resolution in the first place.
But bottom line: I suspect space and air are mostly not actually on the recording. Easy to verify by comparing speaker with headphone sound. Even when significant hall acoustics are included in the recording, to me headphones may sound very detailed, but airy and spacey, never.
Good point. I suspect, and that was a bit the message of my previous post, that most space and air comes from delay/phase, and in that respect, is influenced mostly by speaker radiation patterns and placement. This assuming the system is of decent resolution in the first place.
But bottom line: I suspect space and air are mostly not actually on the recording. Easy to verify by comparing speaker with headphone sound. Even when significant hall acoustics are included in the recording, to me headphones may sound very detailed, but airy and spacey, never.
Hi guys,
I had a long conversation with my friend Leo yesterday. I told him of my Bandung experience. He told me that he has a couple of friends that digitize their LP's though an M-Audio outboard USB-DAC at 24 bits, then 'clean' the file from most sharp clicks and pops, then downsample to 16 bit and write it to CD.
In his experience, the CD is indistinguisable from the original LP! Even if it is different because of the cleaning, the background noise is there and it really 'sounds' like LP.
Another remark I found very interesting: he doesn't like CD, it gives him listening fatigue after a few tracks, he doesn't like the glare and hardness (his words), BUT, with the LP-copy CD that goes away! He can listen to these CDs hours on end, no fatigue!
I know this is not a scientific proof of anything, but I found this very interesting and does point in the direction we have been mentioning in this thread, that the weakness of the CD is not the medium but the mixing and mastering and compression and expansion and what have you that goes on before the poor signal comes to rest in those acryllic pits. (Hows that for literature ).
Jan Didden
I had a long conversation with my friend Leo yesterday. I told him of my Bandung experience. He told me that he has a couple of friends that digitize their LP's though an M-Audio outboard USB-DAC at 24 bits, then 'clean' the file from most sharp clicks and pops, then downsample to 16 bit and write it to CD.
In his experience, the CD is indistinguisable from the original LP! Even if it is different because of the cleaning, the background noise is there and it really 'sounds' like LP.
Another remark I found very interesting: he doesn't like CD, it gives him listening fatigue after a few tracks, he doesn't like the glare and hardness (his words), BUT, with the LP-copy CD that goes away! He can listen to these CDs hours on end, no fatigue!
I know this is not a scientific proof of anything, but I found this very interesting and does point in the direction we have been mentioning in this thread, that the weakness of the CD is not the medium but the mixing and mastering and compression and expansion and what have you that goes on before the poor signal comes to rest in those acryllic pits. (Hows that for literature
).Jan Didden
Now that is something enlightening and heartening at the same time (at least for us who have given up LPs - very few and very costly here)...
Perhaps a few more details - sampling rate used when converting to digital, and the exact process used to downsample from 24 to 16 bits? Type of dither and amplitude?
Cheers!
Perhaps a few more details - sampling rate used when converting to digital, and the exact process used to downsample from 24 to 16 bits? Type of dither and amplitude?
Cheers!
janneman said:Hi guys,
I had a long conversation with my friend Leo yesterday. I told him of my Bandung experience. He told me that he has a couple of friends that digitize their LP's though an M-Audio outboard USB-DAC at 24 bits, then 'clean' the file from most sharp clicks and pops, then downsample to 16 bit and write it to CD.
In his experience, the CD is indistinguisable from the original LP! Even if it is different because of the cleaning, the background noise is there and it really 'sounds' like LP.
Another remark I found very interesting: he doesn't like CD, it gives him listening fatigue after a few tracks, he doesn't like the glare and hardness (his words), BUT, with the LP-copy CD that goes away! He can listen to these CDs hours on end, no fatigue!
I know this is not a scientific proof of anything, but I found this very interesting and does point in the direction we have been mentioning in this thread, that the weakness of the CD is not the medium but the mixing and mastering and compression and expansion and what have you that goes on before the poor signal comes to rest in those acryllic pits. (Hows that for literature
Jan Didden
It also may tell that the Maudio DAC sound better than his CD player.
But yes, i agree, most CDs aren't recorded with quality in mind
Jan,
Referring to your post #68, I have exactly the same experience.
Apart from a DIY Aleph ONO, I have no exotic gear to transfer LP to CD. I record in 32-bit mode and downsample (after cleaning) to 16 bit. The difference between 32 bit and 16 bit is audible in the fine details.
It’s difficult to explain but indeed, listening fatigue, glare and hardness are pretty good words to describe the phenomenon.
I also found some ‘remastered’ CD’s sounding less appealing than the LP version.
Although not the greatest recordings, Lou Reed’s Berlin and Zz Top’s Tres Hombres are fine examples. I have both the CD and LP (transferred) on HDD. Nice material for an A/B test.
/Hugo
Referring to your post #68, I have exactly the same experience.
Apart from a DIY Aleph ONO, I have no exotic gear to transfer LP to CD. I record in 32-bit mode and downsample (after cleaning) to 16 bit. The difference between 32 bit and 16 bit is audible in the fine details.
It’s difficult to explain but indeed, listening fatigue, glare and hardness are pretty good words to describe the phenomenon.
I also found some ‘remastered’ CD’s sounding less appealing than the LP version.
Although not the greatest recordings, Lou Reed’s Berlin and Zz Top’s Tres Hombres are fine examples. I have both the CD and LP (transferred) on HDD. Nice material for an A/B test.
/Hugo
You may find this link interesting: http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1644
Peter Daniel said:
Hi Peter,
Yes, thanks, it is interesting but I have a little trouble understanding his point. Does he mean that FM is enjoyable to listen to? Or does he mean that FM is better than his LP and CD replay? Does he realise that most of that FM probably is from the same CD's he has in his room?
So, again, interesting but confusing.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
He meant that live FM transmission provides better sound quality than the music he gets from his digital or analog rigs, which are pretty high end. But that was not really the point of me posting the link. The methods he uses for recording analog to digital should be more of an interest here.
Peter Daniel said:
Hi Peter,
Hmmm. Still confused. He said:
"So, probably the CR-7A or Dragon would be the obvious choose, but are any alternatives available? Some people propose that the audio recording on Sony SuperBetta professional machine might deliver way more superiors result then Nak’s cassettes. I might also go for a good reel-to-reel machine. The new blank reel-to-reel tapes are being manufactured and the new heads are available, so why not? Perhaps some kind of DAT of hard drive-based digital format might be used? I really do not know and frankly speaking I would like do not try all of them.
Can some of you share your experience with recording media and suggest what from your prospective might be able to handle the “size” and the “weigh” of the FM broadcasts?"
So, he really has no idea what to use to record. Anyway, listening to the same music you have but let it playback in a far away studio and sent it to you over FM and then saying it sounds better then when you play it on your own CD or turntable strikes me as, well, not very confidence inspiring?
"Size and weight" of FM? Does he mean the 15kHz upper limit, or the limited dynamic range, or perhaps the lf boost they all seem to use to make it sound good on students' compact systems? Do you think this guy has a clue?Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.