Speakers (generally) cannot, however
Isn't there a difference between timing and frequency response?
Maybe you're right and I'm not debating but too many people see or hear things that are in their heads... Trust me there's many examples.
I bet you take that the same song have it well converted over from 24/768 to 24/192 make them hear then take the same song again without them knowing and tell them that it is the 768 version and all of a sudden there's more magic or the other way around and now it is not as good but the same 768 file twice!
Just saying
Do
Seems like a silly argument.
I tend to respect Robert Watts' research and opinions. Chord has a reputation for making good products. So he must be doing something right.
...always enjoy reading your comments, Barrows...
Your point is well taken regarding options for shaping inputs to the DAC because all of our systems operate with different inherent flaws. As I've tweaked the digital side of my system, I have found that SQ of most 44.1 material improved more - sometimes much more - than material that is natively 88.2 and up. Initially this was counter-intuitive. The digital tweaks did not 'lift all boats (program material) equally' - they also produced better performance by compensating for analog-side limitations affecting mostly redbook material. So to the extent that filtering can make a DAC play nice with amps and speakers, great! But for basic fidelity in real world (non ultra high end) systems, I think the greatest benefits are on the low end rather than the high end of the sampling frequency spectrum. ...and yes, I'm working on my analog side now, before I consider how to retire the aging I2S interface...
Good luck to Russ in getting the USB interface tweaked to the Buffalo without too much pain and suffering! I think the demand will be there...
Cheers,
Frank
Your point is well taken regarding options for shaping inputs to the DAC because all of our systems operate with different inherent flaws. As I've tweaked the digital side of my system, I have found that SQ of most 44.1 material improved more - sometimes much more - than material that is natively 88.2 and up. Initially this was counter-intuitive. The digital tweaks did not 'lift all boats (program material) equally' - they also produced better performance by compensating for analog-side limitations affecting mostly redbook material. So to the extent that filtering can make a DAC play nice with amps and speakers, great! But for basic fidelity in real world (non ultra high end) systems, I think the greatest benefits are on the low end rather than the high end of the sampling frequency spectrum. ...and yes, I'm working on my analog side now, before I consider how to retire the aging I2S interface...
Good luck to Russ in getting the USB interface tweaked to the Buffalo without too much pain and suffering! I think the demand will be there...
Cheers,
Frank
No...
There is not. Transient speed is limited by the high frequency response of the loudspeaker. For example, to reproduce a theoretical instantaneous transient (vertical leading edge of waveform) would require a loudspeaker of infinite bandwidth.
In the real world, my listening has suggested that 24/176.4 (or perhaps 32 bit, just to allow for more manipulation in mixing, etc) is an adequate sample rate to achieve the best real world performance possible. This would also suggest that 2x DSD is adequate as well. And the limiting factor for real world performance is the performance of the digital filters. At 24/176.4 and above, digital filtering, when done right, is essentially inaudible.
There are some electronics with much wider bandwidth now (Spectral), but until we have speakers capable of a huge increase in bandwidth, I see no reason for sample rates above 24/176.4-24/192. In fact, designers would probably be better off spending their efforts on other areas of audio to make improvements. Additionally, increasing audio system bandwidth comes with a lot of other problems, such as resolving unwanted RF signals... Some designers (yes, this is somewhat controversial, and there are those who argue the opposite POV) are even in favor of purposefully limiting bandwidth as a path to better audio performance. Looking at the response curves of even the best tweeters, those designers may have a point!
There is not. Transient speed is limited by the high frequency response of the loudspeaker. For example, to reproduce a theoretical instantaneous transient (vertical leading edge of waveform) would require a loudspeaker of infinite bandwidth.
In the real world, my listening has suggested that 24/176.4 (or perhaps 32 bit, just to allow for more manipulation in mixing, etc) is an adequate sample rate to achieve the best real world performance possible. This would also suggest that 2x DSD is adequate as well. And the limiting factor for real world performance is the performance of the digital filters. At 24/176.4 and above, digital filtering, when done right, is essentially inaudible.
There are some electronics with much wider bandwidth now (Spectral), but until we have speakers capable of a huge increase in bandwidth, I see no reason for sample rates above 24/176.4-24/192. In fact, designers would probably be better off spending their efforts on other areas of audio to make improvements. Additionally, increasing audio system bandwidth comes with a lot of other problems, such as resolving unwanted RF signals... Some designers (yes, this is somewhat controversial, and there are those who argue the opposite POV) are even in favor of purposefully limiting bandwidth as a path to better audio performance. Looking at the response curves of even the best tweeters, those designers may have a point!
Fuel to the fire or food for thought:
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
Hahaha...
better put your head in a vise then, and have very precise measurements made of the ear to tweeter difference for where you set up that vice, all that precision will be lost with even the most minute difference in distance from one a pair of speakers... or listen to a single speaker in mono for everything...
BTW, I fail to see how the timing of a transient could be unrelated to rise time????
better put your head in a vise then, and have very precise measurements made of the ear to tweeter difference for where you set up that vice, all that precision will be lost with even the most minute difference in distance from one a pair of speakers... or listen to a single speaker in mono for everything...
BTW, I fail to see how the timing of a transient could be unrelated to rise time????
Why to chill on this frequency point: The primary neurons in the Organ of Corti within the ear are wired as probable filters, even before sending transduced info on to the brain. There is nothing 'flat' about the system. The incredible acuity of good ears was developed through evolutionary history as an asset in mere survival, of course. (Is that a very big kitty creeping up on me? ) In such a diverse population as ours, we must expect that significant natural variation among individuals is the rule, not the exception. What one person swears by, another 'normal' person possibly cannot hear. And it is all good... [Thus it was with some skepticism that I first dabbled in the black art of transducer mods but in the end the cone tweaks sounded very much like adding Tridents to the Buffalo! ...just my ears, maybe not yours...]
2 channels via USB is a great place to start. The aspect of the new XMOS products that seems cool is their purpose-specific scalability (though I have read little detail). I vote for a chip with the guts to at least run multi-way crossover filters with timing adjustments! ...or a little room correction... How sweet would those be? And what better DAC to pair with that than the new 8 channel Buffalo? Not that those DSP jobs can't be done before the USB bus, but it IS inconvenient to keep those crossover filter channels clean and clear - especially compared to not needing a host computer at all! USB =, and if XMOS inputs other than USB might eventually become available then this new interface (+DSP?) should be relevant for a good while. Again, good luck!
Frank
) In such a diverse population as ours, we must expect that significant natural variation among individuals is the rule, not the exception. What one person swears by, another 'normal' person possibly cannot hear. And it is all good... [Thus it was with some skepticism that I first dabbled in the black art of transducer mods but in the end the cone tweaks sounded very much like adding Tridents to the Buffalo! ...just my ears, maybe not yours...] 2 channels via USB is a great place to start. The aspect of the new XMOS products that seems cool is their purpose-specific scalability (though I have read little detail). I vote for a chip with the guts to at least run multi-way crossover filters with timing adjustments! ...or a little room correction... How sweet would those be? And what better DAC to pair with that than the new 8 channel Buffalo? Not that those DSP jobs can't be done before the USB bus, but it IS inconvenient to keep those crossover filter channels clean and clear - especially compared to not needing a host computer at all! USB =
, and if XMOS inputs other than USB might eventually become available then this new interface (+DSP?) should be relevant for a good while. Again, good luck! Frank
Last edited:
First you tell me that my arguments are silly and now someone brings research with proofs and it is spam. Seems to me that it is a very scientific research but who knows, it could be just propaganda which I doubt it is.
Remember Chord is a company to begin with and they want to sell their products... Keep this in mind.
This is not meant as an insult or to challenge you but mainly discussion.
Ciao!
Do
...enjoyed the Monty article but in the area of neuroscience it is a bit of a gloss-job over 20th century ideas. Considering how the nervous system's selective attention de-emphasizes so much sound (
witness MP3 technology) it wouldn't surprise me if on a higher level, the brain attends to* certain kinds of harmonics that could arise from hypersonic sources. [* ...like the attention effect of fingernails on a chalk board.] So I don't automatically dismiss the importance of critical binaural timing, and improving a cone's transient ability does have other perceptual effects than just 'punch'. But the upper limit of source frequency for these hypothetical perceptual effects? I'm guessing lots of individual variability. Over and out.The articles...
Really gloss over the reality. I agree that, perhaps, 18 bits could be enough if indeed no one ever wanted to use any processing on a recording. But 24 bits gives margin for processing, and room for error, which always exists. Additionally, while the ultimate dynamic range does not require more bits, smoother gradations of micro dynamics result from more bits-how audible this is will depend entirely on the system though.
I also agree that frequency response much over 30 kHz or so is not necessary, but the articles do not go deep enough into digital filtering, and the quite audible artifacts of digital filters necessary for the 44.1 KHz sampling rate. I have listened to comparisons of 16/44.1 files and 24/192 files made from the same master, using the same SRC (master is DXD) and can hear differences which matter to me.
Additionally, many digital engineers whose judgement I trust, who have spent a lot of time developing digital filters, have pointed out that it is at 24/176.4-24/192 where one can use really benign filters and have no audible artifacts. I would much rather get my music at these rates, and am willing to pay a premium (and do) in order to have the more benign filters in play, and a little margin for error in the design and operation of the DAC. Indeed, 16/44.1 can sound very good when everything (ADC, mixing, mastering, DAC) is done absolutely perfectly, but there is no margin for error, and even when done "perfectly" there are still filter artifacts in the audible spectrum.
The first article suggests that the "problem" of high resolution music files is that they take up a lot of space! What nonsense, check the price difference between 500 GB and a 2TB hard drive these days, storage space is a non-issue. The article appears to be written for those who need to have their entire music library available on an iPod: in that case I agree: if one is listening to their music on an iPod, through Apples stock earbuds, then yes, there is no point in high resolution downloads, in fact, higher rate MP3s are entirely adequate for those listeners.
Articles like this are a little dangerous IMO, as they may undermine the availability of high resolution audio. Sure, 24/176.4-24/192 files may not be for everyone, but allowing the consumer to choose the quality level they want to purchase is the best option.
Really gloss over the reality. I agree that, perhaps, 18 bits could be enough if indeed no one ever wanted to use any processing on a recording. But 24 bits gives margin for processing, and room for error, which always exists. Additionally, while the ultimate dynamic range does not require more bits, smoother gradations of micro dynamics result from more bits-how audible this is will depend entirely on the system though.
I also agree that frequency response much over 30 kHz or so is not necessary, but the articles do not go deep enough into digital filtering, and the quite audible artifacts of digital filters necessary for the 44.1 KHz sampling rate. I have listened to comparisons of 16/44.1 files and 24/192 files made from the same master, using the same SRC (master is DXD) and can hear differences which matter to me.
Additionally, many digital engineers whose judgement I trust, who have spent a lot of time developing digital filters, have pointed out that it is at 24/176.4-24/192 where one can use really benign filters and have no audible artifacts. I would much rather get my music at these rates, and am willing to pay a premium (and do) in order to have the more benign filters in play, and a little margin for error in the design and operation of the DAC. Indeed, 16/44.1 can sound very good when everything (ADC, mixing, mastering, DAC) is done absolutely perfectly, but there is no margin for error, and even when done "perfectly" there are still filter artifacts in the audible spectrum.
The first article suggests that the "problem" of high resolution music files is that they take up a lot of space! What nonsense, check the price difference between 500 GB and a 2TB hard drive these days, storage space is a non-issue. The article appears to be written for those who need to have their entire music library available on an iPod: in that case I agree: if one is listening to their music on an iPod, through Apples stock earbuds, then yes, there is no point in high resolution downloads, in fact, higher rate MP3s are entirely adequate for those listeners.
Articles like this are a little dangerous IMO, as they may undermine the availability of high resolution audio. Sure, 24/176.4-24/192 files may not be for everyone, but allowing the consumer to choose the quality level they want to purchase is the best option.
agreed...
There is good information. I only object to the absolute tone in the first article. If one read it with the mindset of believing it is definitive, one would come away thinking there is no value to high resolution music files. I feel that spreading such a point of view is counter productive to increase in availability of high res music.
Here at DIY audio, of course, we will read it and do our own listening tests, and come to our own conclusions, but over at Hydrogen Audio...
Keep in mind - I did not say I fully agree with either article.
I just think they are interesting, educational, and good food for thought.
There is good information. I only object to the absolute tone in the first article. If one read it with the mindset of believing it is definitive, one would come away thinking there is no value to high resolution music files. I feel that spreading such a point of view is counter productive to increase in availability of high res music.
Here at DIY audio, of course, we will read it and do our own listening tests, and come to our own conclusions, but over at Hydrogen Audio...
An absolute tone is natural for someone who is convinced they are correct. I would hope anyone reading this forum would (if interested) read it, and then simply take it for what it's worth. People who take such a tone are neither automatically right or wrong.
You and I have our own opinion on the matter, but reasonable people could disagree. That's just fine.
My own opinion is that there is value in higher sample rates and bit depth - but that there are practical and real limits to that value. Including available material. I agree it would be nice to have more such material available, and I am lucky to have access to a lot of it myself. But almost none of it is more than 196/24. The bulk of the masters I have access to are 96/24. I would say only about 30% are 192Khz. The couple of studios I have access to do not do anything above 192Khz.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have good friends here in Nashville. The fact is very few people will ever have access to such material. I find that sad.
I enjoy reading things that challenge my thinking. I do it regularly. It only serves to reinforce my own convictions. I am not afraid to present an opposing point of view if for no other reason than to get people talking.
Cheers!
Russ
You and I have our own opinion on the matter, but reasonable people could disagree. That's just fine.
My own opinion is that there is value in higher sample rates and bit depth - but that there are practical and real limits to that value. Including available material.
I agree it would be nice to have more such material available, and I am lucky to have access to a lot of it myself. But almost none of it is more than 196/24. The bulk of the masters I have access to are 96/24. I would say only about 30% are 192Khz. The couple of studios I have access to do not do anything above 192Khz.I consider myself extremely fortunate to have good friends here in Nashville. The fact is very few people will ever have access to such material. I find that sad.
I enjoy reading things that challenge my thinking. I do it regularly. It only serves to reinforce my own convictions.
I am not afraid to present an opposing point of view if for no other reason than to get people talking.Cheers!
Russ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.