"Bigger/more is better" is one reason. The audio industry needing new ways to sell the same old stuff to us is another. Then you have the normal "audiophile" reasons - the need to be "better" than your neighbour, and feeding the insecurity (as in "are you sure your system is as good as it *can* be?").
Sorry you "hate" my use of the term Steve...maybe that was a harsh term to use in hindsight. Humans being humans does contain it's share of delusional thinkers, so maybe there's some validity there.
I agree we don't know "everything" but considering the advances in scientific knowledge in physic's, chemistry, medical and engineering disciplines along with the many advanced tools we have to analyze said science, it seems we do fully understand more than enough about sound, audio and human hearing. This isn't Higgs bosun particle research going on.
Still doesn't address or explain to me why there is an entire industry out there building and designing increased rate products and recording musical content with people trying to take this to the nth degree, when there is apparently nothing going on there....that's really my question more than anything.
To just say humans are humans is just not good enough.
In fact we also understand that as well and know we can be tricked..
Sure, but expectation and perceptional bias is not delusional. It is totally normal, and a result of evolutionary sensory adaptations. We are all susceptible - the only difference is that some of us doubt our senses and double-check, and others go "I know what I hear".
It may not be "good enough," but it has the virtue of being correct. Go to your local drugstore and look at the variety of homeopathic medicines for sale. Big industry. Herbal "supplements," ditto. Magnetic insoles for your shoes. Astrology and fortune telling. The point is that an industry can exist and even flourish (especially in niche markets like high quality audio) without having even a shred of basis in fact. Perhaps even especially in niche markets!
Unfortunately there are to many reports spreaded from people comparing their newest Hires download against their 20 year old CD version and claiming the perceived advantage only comes from the better format. Hard to explain to them to dig deeper with preparing some simple testing.
I have been in the position to listen to a multitrack tape played back through mixdown desk, stereo tape playback, and the cd derived from this stereo tape machine output.
In this case the 2 track tape output sounded different to the desk output (the tape machine was set to run a little 'hot' in order to 'effect' the sound).
The output of the cd also sounded different to the 2 track tape output.
There are variables involved like the quality of the stereo tape machine, and the quality of the AD convertor.
Whatever the cause, there was readily discernable difference in the cd player output, such as subtle loss of detail and HF 'air', and 'life' that was present in the 2 track and multi track.
In the paper cited somewhere above, there is noted the possibility or probability of sub 20kHz IMD products, such products being audible and causing decrease in playback accuracy according to the capability of the playback gear.
Dan.
In this case the 2 track tape output sounded different to the desk output (the tape machine was set to run a little 'hot' in order to 'effect' the sound).
The output of the cd also sounded different to the 2 track tape output.
There are variables involved like the quality of the stereo tape machine, and the quality of the AD convertor.
Whatever the cause, there was readily discernable difference in the cd player output, such as subtle loss of detail and HF 'air', and 'life' that was present in the 2 track and multi track.
In the paper cited somewhere above, there is noted the possibility or probability of sub 20kHz IMD products, such products being audible and causing decrease in playback accuracy according to the capability of the playback gear.
Dan.
Yep. 😎🙂
There is something very wrong going on. Because, Masters sound Sooooo much more like what was played by the musicians. Closer to real instrument sound.
The next closest thing are the masters downloaded off the Internet in HiDef.
IMO it may be the best music source sound for now.
THx-RNMarsh
Exactly what i talk about. You obviously don't know exactly where the difference comes from. You have some theory of sub 20khz IMD that is most likely a non-issue but it comes out like the CD format is to blame.
What i meant above is that if you get a new hires release you can't compare it to some CD. You need a DAC working fine at hires and 44.1 and compare a well resampled version against.
Exactly. Unfortunately a lot of people still have blind faith in the absolute accuracy of their ear-brain system and will respond with "I *know* what I hear". I have two words for them: McGurk Effect.
Just had a look at other gizmodo writeups. There are several usb dacs etc written up with 192kHz/24bits. No questions about the science there.
Meridian Explorer USB DAC Review: Make Your Digital Music Sing
A Tiny Matchbook-Sized USB DAC Will Make Your Headphones Sound Sublime
This USB DAC Is Your Make-Music-Sing Deal of the Day
Meridian Explorer USB DAC Review: Make Your Digital Music Sing
A Tiny Matchbook-Sized USB DAC Will Make Your Headphones Sound Sublime
This USB DAC Is Your Make-Music-Sing Deal of the Day
Back to the subject of Pono, cnet has a pretty good writeup of the arguments and backlash: Despite Pono's Promise, Experts Pan HD Audio.
Same, But Different....
I am saying that the CDP output sounded substantially different to the 2 track tape output.
The AD that was used to digitise (44/16) the 2 track master output may be to blame, ditto the CDP DA converter stage....or both.
This AD/DA process by definition causes 22kHz band limiting and resolution reduction.
This digitising process, whilst giving a resultant that is regarded as 'adequate' for music reproduction is not subjectively the same as the output of the 2 track master tape.
IOW, there are losses along the way that are very readily discernible in the context of A/B comparison.
The 'theory' of lower order IMD products is not my theory....rather, it is stated in the paper cited earlier in this thread.
Dan.
I did state ''whatever the cause''.
I am saying that the CDP output sounded substantially different to the 2 track tape output.
The AD that was used to digitise (44/16) the 2 track master output may be to blame, ditto the CDP DA converter stage....or both.
This AD/DA process by definition causes 22kHz band limiting and resolution reduction.
This digitising process, whilst giving a resultant that is regarded as 'adequate' for music reproduction is not subjectively the same as the output of the 2 track master tape.
IOW, there are losses along the way that are very readily discernible in the context of A/B comparison.
The 'theory' of lower order IMD products is not my theory....rather, it is stated in the paper cited earlier in this thread.
Dan.
Still no evidence for nothing and thats what i mean. People having some experience with some setup blame band-limiting and resolution loss meaning digital 44.1 is not enough even if they dion't know if this is really the cause. I don't doubt you heard what you report. Also "resolution reduction" while digitizing a tape source should be no problem with a modern ADC.
I'm not trying to start any argument, just a personal observation.
Your main problem with the listening experience is the quality of the analog equipment used to produce all the detail and dynamic range that may be available in any recording.
The listening environment itself has more to do with this than anything if using speakers. Then you have the quality and mastering of the original recording or nowadays the remastering of the original recordings using lots of technology to squeeze the last details out of what was captured from some Neumann microphone of the day...
There are definitely known differences in MP3's "detail" compared to direct CD audio.
Sometimes the remastered version are "louder" than some original record or CD's because they have lower noise floors and more dynamic range available than before. So that has to be accounted for. Loudness can give you more detail and space and the perception is we like that because as long as it is not distorted and it sounds clean, it "feels" more substantial and pulls us into a closer more secure feeling of detail. And we like that experience...if you're not exactly matching levels between test samples you're still tricking yourself.
One thing I've found and have noticed is subtle noises within recordings like "I Feel Fine" by the Beatles. I have several different renderings and remasters of this particular song.
At the very beginning of that song there is some physical movement from a chair or foot that was picked up in the recording studio and left there. I'm sure it was difficult to remove unwanted noise like that back then. It's so subtle that in the remastered hi-rez file you can distinctly hear the movement and it's uncanny how the sound of that detail is so real that you think someone is in the room making that noise behind you (with good headphones of course). Yet when I listen to that from a 128k MP3 it is barely audible. (And that's when I actually know it's there and listening for it).
I have found other very detailed sounds like that in other songs I have. Like I said some of these can be really startling sounds to hear.
So even though the recording content and detail is in there...even down to some subtle noise it is all being reproduced and captured, it's just not as detailed.
This could be where some of the listening experience are coming from and no doubt improvement in the playback system is where the real change needs to happen.
There may be no argument that higher res recordings can be made and that there may in fact be an upper limit to how well it can be digitized and I have no doubt in my mind I can't hear ultra sonic material above 20khz. But the real analog sound we actually use to listen with our ears is still far behind the technology curve.
Your main problem with the listening experience is the quality of the analog equipment used to produce all the detail and dynamic range that may be available in any recording.
The listening environment itself has more to do with this than anything if using speakers. Then you have the quality and mastering of the original recording or nowadays the remastering of the original recordings using lots of technology to squeeze the last details out of what was captured from some Neumann microphone of the day...
There are definitely known differences in MP3's "detail" compared to direct CD audio.
Sometimes the remastered version are "louder" than some original record or CD's because they have lower noise floors and more dynamic range available than before. So that has to be accounted for. Loudness can give you more detail and space and the perception is we like that because as long as it is not distorted and it sounds clean, it "feels" more substantial and pulls us into a closer more secure feeling of detail. And we like that experience...if you're not exactly matching levels between test samples you're still tricking yourself.
One thing I've found and have noticed is subtle noises within recordings like "I Feel Fine" by the Beatles. I have several different renderings and remasters of this particular song.
At the very beginning of that song there is some physical movement from a chair or foot that was picked up in the recording studio and left there. I'm sure it was difficult to remove unwanted noise like that back then. It's so subtle that in the remastered hi-rez file you can distinctly hear the movement and it's uncanny how the sound of that detail is so real that you think someone is in the room making that noise behind you (with good headphones of course). Yet when I listen to that from a 128k MP3 it is barely audible. (And that's when I actually know it's there and listening for it).
I have found other very detailed sounds like that in other songs I have. Like I said some of these can be really startling sounds to hear.
So even though the recording content and detail is in there...even down to some subtle noise it is all being reproduced and captured, it's just not as detailed.
This could be where some of the listening experience are coming from and no doubt improvement in the playback system is where the real change needs to happen.
There may be no argument that higher res recordings can be made and that there may in fact be an upper limit to how well it can be digitized and I have no doubt in my mind I can't hear ultra sonic material above 20khz. But the real analog sound we actually use to listen with our ears is still far behind the technology curve.
Yes, mp3 is a lossy format where a lot of information is thrown away. It is amazing how close to the original it sounds, even after 80% of the information has been discarded.
Redbook (CD) and (44/16) FLAC are lossless formats. Nothing is discarded.
And perfectly acceptable to most listeners with marginal playback equipment and hearing.
In that sense I think Neil has his point and the Pono player and a good set of cans will achieve a better listening experience with greater detail. And that to me is really the core of his goal in all this.
Actually more than acceptable to most normal listeners.
Yes, almost like a CD player... Novel idea...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.