I dont know how many people have to say this to get some people here unstuck from their perfect CD sound. Except they dont know what real music sounds like, I guess.
Instead, we are defending CD instead of finding what and why it audibly falls apart from midrange and above gets progressively less accurate in sound.
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet records and plays back at higher sampling rates and we are the better for it
I should not be surprised though. it is a forum for electro-mechanical LP system, after all.
JC is correct IMO that the LP and its greater detail and wider BW makes it sound more accurate in that important aspect of sound. But, the FR is not flat and too many other issues. Digital offer the potential to be great. CD is fair but not great - It was a good beginning back in the 1980's.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Phase and timing are important.
Pitch Perception and Auditory Stream Segregation: Implications for Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants
-RNM
Pitch Perception and Auditory Stream Segregation: Implications for Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants
-RNM
Feh, never mind west, go east! Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax, Caoe Breton, PEI, Newfoundland....
Happy New Year!
Of course, I have not. "In signal processing, group delay is the time delay of the amplitude envelopes of the various sinusoidal components of a signal through a device under test, and is a function of frequency for each component. Phase delay, in contrast, is the time delay of the phase as opposed to the time delay of the amplitude envelope.
Is everyone listening to a CD player which produce flat group delay 20- 20KHz?
[Does your whole system have flat GD?]
What does it sound like when it is not flat GD compared to flat?
Relaxing the LP filter requirements via over-sampling might help but often exchanges one problem for another HF problem.
What would a roll-off of about 40KHz standard BW have in making GD and Hf noise easier to deal with?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Of course no one brave to say that. But, They should respect other opinion. But, you know, they did not respect other opinion.
basics- GD
https://www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/vna_based_group_delay_measurement.pdf
Filter group delay rule of thumb: The group delay of a filter is nearly proportional to its order. Also, filter group delay is inversely proportional to filter bandwidth (small percentage bandwidth filters have large group delay).... another problem for some EQ products to consider. Are DSP based EQ systems better as far as GD is concerned?
Which filters are best to design for flat GD for a CD player or DAC for 16/44 play?
Which players use it? How do they measure and sound?
-RM
https://www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/vna_based_group_delay_measurement.pdf
Filter group delay rule of thumb: The group delay of a filter is nearly proportional to its order. Also, filter group delay is inversely proportional to filter bandwidth (small percentage bandwidth filters have large group delay).... another problem for some EQ products to consider. Are DSP based EQ systems better as far as GD is concerned?
Which filters are best to design for flat GD for a CD player or DAC for 16/44 play?
Which players use it? How do they measure and sound?
-RM
Last edited:
Opinion is respected. Plain errors are not and are corrected. For example
1. 'I prefer hires'
2. 'Hi res is better'
The first statement will not cause any issues. It's your money, if you want to pay extra for something then fill your boots.
Statement 2 however requires some evidence other than 'I can hear it when the little light comes on saying I am playing hires material'. Or at least a credible theory. If these are missing then questions will be asked. This is not a lack of respect.
Unless of course you are just trying to stir?
Absolutely. You can learn to hear, or not hear many things. Sometimes things that are not even there (voices in white noise, etc).
Learning to enjoy the music is the best thing of all!
I was once in a venue with a selection of renowned acoustic consultants testing a system. They were talking a lot of BS, so me and the other bored engineer swapped the setting for the sound reinforcement system so that off was on etc. They could all tell when the system was on, and all agreed with each other that they could hear the speakers....
What's the group delay of the record chain? I would hazard with any studio recordings its a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the worst DAC filter?
What are you referring to, digital filters or analogue reconstruction filters.
Probably most D/A converters nowadays are using linear phase FIR filters where GD = (N-1)/2, N being the number of taps, with the exception of those D/A's with switchable filters such as apodizing and minimum phase filters.
So usually the GD is as constant as can be independent of 44.1/16 or 192/24 or whatever.
As far as reconstruction filters concerns, it helps when upsampling is used before the actual D/A step.
Since probably most modern converters are taking this upsampling route, the influence of the reconstruction filter on GD within the audio band can be largely reduced.
I have never seen an actual GD plots of multifilter DAC's while comparing the various filters, but since hearing tests do not bring that much so far, I have my honest doubts if and what role GD could play in perceived sound.
Hans
Richard,
If you want to look into the question of accurate cymbal reproduction, you have to start at the beginning and then work outwards from there. ADCs and DACs are where it starts. ADCs may be worse than DACs since newer DACs with better performance numbers are what people mostly tend to buy and what manufacturers tend to focus on designing.
Personally, I haven't looked into the cymbal question any further back than at DACs. I can tell you the Benchmark DAC-3 is no longer the best, if it ever was to begin with. So, if cymbals don't come out excellently from it, why look at anything past that?
If we just take DACs it doesn't like like there is only one limiting factor, but filters and modulators sure seem suspect, and for good reasons.
Also, few or any of us here ever heard the best DAC/CD-Player currently available played though an ultra-low distortion reproduction system. I haven't. So, how do any of us know how good existing technology really is?
If you want to look into the question of accurate cymbal reproduction, you have to start at the beginning and then work outwards from there. ADCs and DACs are where it starts. ADCs may be worse than DACs since newer DACs with better performance numbers are what people mostly tend to buy and what manufacturers tend to focus on designing.
Personally, I haven't looked into the cymbal question any further back than at DACs. I can tell you the Benchmark DAC-3 is no longer the best, if it ever was to begin with. So, if cymbals don't come out excellently from it, why look at anything past that?
If we just take DACs it doesn't like like there is only one limiting factor, but filters and modulators sure seem suspect, and for good reasons.
Also, few or any of us here ever heard the best DAC/CD-Player currently available played though an ultra-low distortion reproduction system. I haven't. So, how do any of us know how good existing technology really is?
Last edited:
What is nice about having invested in a lot of test equipment is that i can measure a lot of things. My dual channel Network analyzer will accurately measure group delay at the push of a button.
And, if you have some ADC and DAC and some CD recorders you can know and then tell the good from the better. You may or may not be able to do much about the results but you will know what you have and are liistening to.
Noise shaping is another interesting approach which solves one issue and generates another problem else where. It takes away several bits of the word to do it. Hmm.
Maybe we should be using low bit or single-bit systems instead at very high sample rates.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.