CS4398 vs "the sabre" (32 bit) ..
"Mine is longer" has quite the cost margin.
All them extra bits might be useful for multichannel tracking , smoother
digital (almost analog like) attenuation.
I'm quite practical , 24bit DAC's (CSxxxx) seem pretty "mainstream".
32 bit attenuation and >130db dnr seem just a bit "overkill".
I would still hear input pair bjt noise on my new amp (with a "sabre")
Too bad they could not decode the entire 4.1/5.1 with a 32bit/single IC
OS
"Mine is longer" has quite the cost margin.
All them extra bits might be useful for multichannel tracking , smoother
digital (almost analog like) attenuation.
I'm quite practical , 24bit DAC's (CSxxxx) seem pretty "mainstream".
32 bit attenuation and >130db dnr seem just a bit "overkill".
I would still hear input pair bjt noise on my new amp (with a "sabre")
Too bad they could not decode the entire 4.1/5.1 with a 32bit/single IC
OS
Most old music is either analog/16bit , very little recorded 24bit.
link - Audio Myth - "24-bit Audio Has More Resolution Than 16-bit Audio" - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.
another (cool !) - 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
24bit -More "lore".
If you are either creating 24bit original material
or Bruno putzeys develops the "next generation -140db SNR"
"alien" class D amp ... them bits might be well worth it.
PS - for multi-channel 24bit , this extra info might not go to waste.
Creating the "illusion" of greater SQ.
OS
Direct to disc was a great step forward. It eliminated a whole process that - it was clear - was adding significant distortion. I bought it and enjoyed it. Wish there was more of that done... maybe I would have kept my LP system around just for them. In a similar way, going direct to me via HD downloads has been better.
24-32 bit is everywhere within digital equipment now, as we know. Down converting excessively back to 16 does no good at all but maintain the status quo. Get me direct access to the 24-32 and it will also sound better. Anyway, I have pointed out the major area of digital that you hear and dislike in CD. Not enough bits where we listen.
Now some like the CD and find no fault in it. Thats fine.... keep buying them if you like it or can make it work for you. I love my master analog tapes, too. They are much better than LP made/played from them. The analog tapes are the source material for the LP. When you make and listen to them, you hear all the problems of a record playing mfr, playback setup/system. And, i tried everything to be satisfied with LP.... it just never worked for me as well as I wanted my sound. But direct to disc showed that a simpler recording system-direct as possible - gave audible benefits.
However, digital will continue to get better. It has more potential left in it for improvement than LP has of making great strides in improvement.
And, the major players are shifting to HiRes audio now just as they had moved from CRT/NTSC to DVD to Blue Ray to UHD video. So, there are plenty of choices out there for everyone --- even for their own sacred cow.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Most old music is either analog/16bit , very little recorded 24bit.
PS - for multi-channel 24bit , this extra info might not go to waste.
Creating the "illusion" of greater SQ.
OS
I mean old. That old means to Me, recorded before CD.... analog tape.
yes, multi-channel is another good use for more bits. An area the audio mfr have not given up on. And now research going into 3D sound a.t.t. What ever that is going to become.
OK guys, Enjoy your music.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Thankfully, you're wrong,
- CDs were fine 30 years ago, and still are. Just the people building audio gear for replay are still learning - and the recent audio show demonstrated that the penny had dropped for a couple of the designers, there were about 4 or 5 demos where the music was coming together, from 16 bit source. Eventually, everyone will realise what's going on, build proper gear, and all can relax ... and "just enjoy the music" ... .
The "weak link" is when you merge the digital world
with the analog.
My old analog power supply CD player "won" my first round of
critical listening tests.
Beat my fancy pants PC New SMPS DVD (as a CD player)
was not too convincing , as well.
Isolate the two (digital/analog) - all is well.
Better amps need better sources , 24/32 bit would not solve this
primitive (yet unavoidable) consideration.
Edit - my reason for a sudden interest in DAC's ...
with the analog.
My old analog power supply CD player "won" my first round of
critical listening tests.
Beat my fancy pants PC
New SMPS DVD (as a CD player)was not too convincing , as well.
Isolate the two (digital/analog) - all is well.
Better amps need better sources , 24/32 bit would not solve this
primitive (yet unavoidable) consideration.
Edit - my reason for a sudden interest in DAC's ...
Exactly. Nice thing with digital is that the more effort you put in, the more you get out - and there's a point where it gets dramatically better ... after that, you're always winning ...
.
That's EXACTLY the point! You need 24 bit SYSTEMS to manipulate the signal, but for the final reproduction medium, a well designed, dithered and noise shaped 16 bit delivery vehicle with up to 118dB SNR is already way above the capabilities of almost all analog repro systems.
Jan
@Dick Marsh: Dick in one of the posts you mentioned that you prefer a good analog master tape over, say, CD (correct me if I'm wrong).
What intrigues me is that that CD is a digitised version of that analog master tape - you can't go back to 'before the master tape' to make an original digital recording.
Digitising that master tape is a very transparent process - the noise and distortion of that process, for example, are probably at least a factor 100 lower than what is already present in the master tape.
How can it be that the digital version could sound 'worse' than the tape? Assuming for the discussion that indeed it DOES sound worse, what could be the mechanism?
Jan
PS I am also assuming that there is no additional editing when transferring to digital; if there is, all bets are off of course.
What intrigues me is that that CD is a digitised version of that analog master tape - you can't go back to 'before the master tape' to make an original digital recording.
Digitising that master tape is a very transparent process - the noise and distortion of that process, for example, are probably at least a factor 100 lower than what is already present in the master tape.
How can it be that the digital version could sound 'worse' than the tape? Assuming for the discussion that indeed it DOES sound worse, what could be the mechanism?
Jan
PS I am also assuming that there is no additional editing when transferring to digital; if there is, all bets are off of course.
Well, aren't I lucky - someone's already gone there, went to the trouble of setting up the samples ... Archimago's Musings: INTERNET TEST: 24-bit vs. 16-bit Audio - Can you hear the difference?.I take it that almost nobody has done the exercises of starting with normal CD, upsampling to hires - or starting with premium hires, downsampling that to CD quality, then upsampling that result back up to the starting hires format, and comparing them all ... all the simple, obvious things to try first ... oh dear,
And these were the results ... Archimago's Musings: June 2014.
Oh dear ...
Richard, i think there are a lot of things witch can be done first to improve listening quality before to get worried by those 16 bits.
Using optic links and DA converters in the preamp itself, battery powered, to get rid of ground loops and evils coming from the AC plugs, is the first one.
Not to talk about Speakers ;-)
Really, when i compare any source with a 16/48Khz copy, in a good system, i hardly find a noticeable difference. If any, it is very subtle and don't destroy music.
Well, aren't I lucky - someone's already gone there, went to the trouble of setting up the samples ... Archimago's Musings: INTERNET TEST: 24-bit vs. 16-bit Audio - Can you hear the difference?.
Oh dear ...
None of the files can be downloaded:
- unsupported method of login
- The requested URL /24-bit_Audio_Test_(Hi-Res_24-96-FLAC_2014).zip was not found on this server.
- File not found It may have been deleted by the uploader or due to the received complaint
Pavel, I would say the main download links have been disabled because the test is now so out of date. However, I tried one of the following links noted on that page, and it appears to be working - From Uploaded.net: http://ul.to/fqziwlfs
Just click the Free Download with waiting period, enter the Captiva text, and it starts to download ...
Just click the Free Download with waiting period, enter the Captiva text, and it starts to download ...
Thank you Pete
Nice tabulation
George
>Edit>
It does (just be patient!)
Last edited:
Well, aren't I lucky - someone's already gone there, went to the trouble of setting up the samples ... Archimago's Musings: INTERNET TEST: 24-bit vs. 16-bit Audio - Can you hear the difference?.
And these were the results ... Archimago's Musings: June 2014.
Oh dear ...
Thanks Frank,
Oh my, sure to be ignored or should I say "thoroughly debunked". Ordinary Cooledit/Audition downsampling, too.
Hi Resolution Audio. A short listening test and poll.
With all the talk and interest in high resolution audio in this thread over the last few weeks I have put together three very short files that should have a definite hierarchy in terms of quality when listened too.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/270642-hi-res-audio-listening-test.html
It would be great to try and get some real worthwhile feedback on this topic. Are hi res files worthwhile or are we into diminishing returns above a certain quality ?
With all the talk and interest in high resolution audio in this thread over the last few weeks I have put together three very short files that should have a definite hierarchy in terms of quality when listened too.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/270642-hi-res-audio-listening-test.html
It would be great to try and get some real worthwhile feedback on this topic. Are hi res files worthwhile or are we into diminishing returns above a certain quality ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.