Tassie Devil Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) My first experience with CDs left me horrified and a digital luddite. The sound was harsh and irritating so I stuck to analog LP via Koetsu & other cartridges (cartridges are a PIA to set up optimally), sophisticated tone arms, Linn Sondek turntables etc etc for over a decade. The change to digital was gradual and started surprisingly, via laserdisc. Theta came out with some nice gear that made CDs as well as LDs sound listenable. Of course that started the digital journey with various players, DACs etc until I became seduced by Meridian Sooloos and the 861 processor. Digital was sounding pretty good and the LP collection was sold. The last progression has been away from music reproduction via powerful amps -> electrostatic speakers to head amps and headphones. This has eliminated room distortions and highlighted the AQ which has inspired more adventures into DACs and Sennheiser HD800 headphones. Things were looking up! But along came Roon a couple of years ago so the Sooloos system was sold (without the Meridian 861 – that had blown up after a power supply solder joint failed) and the FLAC files moved onto an internal HDD in this PC. A nice Auralic Aries bridge was used to feed the fully balanced headphone system which ended up with an LKS DA004 DAC and Violectric 861 head amp feeding Focal Utopia headphones. The music (generally classical) was sounding rather good!! Well the final stage of this audiophile lunacy has just been reached with the Auralic Aries sold to a fellow audiophile here on StereoNET and replaced with a Auralic G1. So why bother with the G1 at all? The answer lies in my current journey into hi-rez files where, theoretically, the G1 would handle the digital journey even better. So has it really improved the AQ? I cannot honestly swear to that as I regard auditory memory as highly unreliable. Now it is time to come to the point of this post. How does the hi-rez reproduction compare to CD standards with albums where I have both formats in the Roon system? Many years ago I could not detect any significant difference between SACD compared to 16/44 via a hi-end amp/speaker system so expectations were not high for the newer FLAC files. Add in that my 83 years brain no longer registers as much in the higher frequency spectrum, it was a complete surprise to hear a much cleaner and more open AQ from the newer files. So, it appears to me, that the better digital sampling in hi-rez does far more than improve the higher frequencies which I can no longer hear. There is much better articulation of the midrange with a more open sound to these tired old ears. It seems corny but it does seem as if yet another of Salome’s veils had been lifted to reveal something very attractive. And I’m sure some of your minds are working overtime on that image!!! Up to now I have preaching the importance of the DAC in converting that digital input to listenable analog and I’ll still hold to that but there is obviously a limit so what processing to analog is possible from 16/44. Feed that hi-end DAC with a clean 24/96 signal and the analog results are clearly better. But to hear that does require a well sorted chain of components. Any weak link in that chain can destroy any advantages offered by hi-rez. And I’ll still hold the view that the DAC is one of the weakest links in many systems with speakers and room distortions (or lesser quality headphones) adding to the mix so my findings above will be shouted down as nonsense when no differences in AQ are observed by others. And maybe that G1 was worth buying after all? Sigh, it has been a long (and expensive) road from the Edison cylinders listened to in the attic in the 1940s, graduating to wind up gramophone with fragile 78 rpm noisy shellac records, to mono LP, to stereo LP to the current headphone system fed from digital sources. And there is irony in that my hearing misses quite a lot of what the current system can reproduce. But that does not stop me enjoying the music and that ladies and gentlemen, is the whole point of this ridiculous audio obsession! Edited January 28, 2019 by Tassie Devil Better formatting & pic added 6 1
Kaynin Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 Great reading @Tassie Devil There's a couple of good points you make. You touch on this area and I agree, and that is quite possibly the CD wasn't as compromised as first thought, it was our reproduction within the home that had to improve to gain the benefits. Much like the evolution of vinyl in how you describe going from "Edison cylinders listened to in the attic in the 1940s, graduating to wind up gramophone with fragile 78 rpm noisy shellac records, to mono LP, to stereo LP". Interesting observations.
PleasantSounds Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Tassie Devil said: So, it appears to me, that the better digital sampling in hi-rez does far more than improve the higher frequencies which I can no longer hear. There is much better articulation of the midrange with a more open sound to these tired old ears. I have heard these differences as well, but when I downsampled the hi-res files to 16/44, I could still hear the same differences compared to the original 16/44 recordings. It would be great if you could also do something like that, just to make sure that the differences you hear are not caused by a different master. Edit: next step wpld be to compare the downsampled version to the hi res original as well. Edited January 28, 2019 by PleasantSounds one more thought 4
audiofeline Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 One of the biggest limitations of 16/44 is the source material. Many early CDs were punched from multi-generation LP masters (with compromised eq) or needle drops. Not a great deal of care was done in the masterings, as they didn't need to. The entry-level CD players were a quantum-leap ahead of the quality of the average record-players that the general public owned (not the deliberate avoidance of the word turntable). So the public swallowed the myth perpetuated by the record-companie's spin-doctors of the "perfect" digital sound that could not be improved. Decades later, the quality of 16/44 is still compromised by the fashion to compress the life from the music, and for excessive noise-reduction, etc. on archival releases. Perfect sound? - it is not. However, well-done masterings in 16/44 can sound wonderful. For example, the Hoffman/DCC disks were mastered from the original 2-track masters (not the LP masters), with minimal signal chain and processing. No compression, so it'a actually taking advantage of the wide CD dynamic range, no noise reduction (not required). Glorious sound. CDs can sound good. Now I haven't done any comparison with high-res digital SACD/DVD-A/BluRay audio etc, mainly because I only have one copy. These formats are an improvement on 16/44, but only when the source music has not been compromised by poor mastering decisions (eg. make them sound "modern by compressing, not using the orig. master tape, using noise reduction, etc). The record companies frustrate me by creating a medium which could create a wonderful sound, but then take away that sound by degrading the music. Fortunately, not all of these high-res releases are compromised, some truly demonstrate the quality of the medium. And now, to all intents and purposes, those formats are dead. Maybe high-res downloads will have longevity. At some time I look forward to hearing these and comparing the sound. I still find that good quality analogue reproduction gives digital a run for it's money. But, in answer to the original question, 16/44 was a compromise, no question about it. But with the right source material, it can sound darn good. And despite all the choices we have to reproduce the music, we have little choice in the source material - we are restricted to the good, the bad, or the ugly that the owners choose to give us. 3
Nada Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 Quote How really compromised is 16/44 CD quality? 16/44.1 format is not compromised at all 16/44.1 encoding can capture more info then any human can extract the compromise comes in the recording engineering and playback chain with the right play back chain 16/44.1 files can sound identical to "hirez" files an impaired playback chain can sound better with "hirez" but if that's your case don't blame 16/44.1 11
Tassie Devil Posted January 29, 2019 Author Posted January 29, 2019 "However, well-done masterings in 16/44 can sound wonderful." And I must agree. Today I was drooling over how nice the cello sounded in Bach Cello Suites, expecting it to be another of the hi-rez downloads but no, it was the old 16/44. One wonders sometimes just how much those multi slider control panels on mixers mess up the sound. As you say, it sheets back to the skill of the engineers in control. Bottom line I'm VERY happy not to have to listen to music via LP with its inevitable "Snap Crackle & Pop" + the PIA ordeal of turntables, arms, cartridges with their geometric compromises, ....... Good luck to those who enjoy the challenges of hearing great music from that medium but I've been there, done that, moved on and am not looking back. And I respectfully suggest to the analog diehards that digital is not as bad as you (and I once did) think. If it sounds harsh, then that is the fault of jitter and is not being controlled by the DAC (and bridge?). 6 1
MattyW Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) Gah, why does anyone have to bring LP's into it. If you're getting surface noise either the LP is dirty or worn, or you've a cartridge alignment issue. The only two disadvantages of the format are convenience and expense. That said I still purchase LP's and CD's and find what sounds better always comes down to the mastering. Likewise if I rip one of my LP's using a Schiit Saga interface at 192k there is no audible difference from the original playback when played back using JRiver and a Gieseler Gross DAC. All this tells me it's that the format wars have and will always be complete BS. Quality is down to the mastering on any given medium and provided your chain is uncompromised in any way 16/44 should sound exactly the same as a higher bit rate. That said my DAC does seem to get a better result when fed DSD so I upsample in JRiver for all media. Theoretically there should be no difference, though there is. Edited February 3, 2019 by MattyW 3
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 My observation is that CD quality 16 bit 44.1khz is perfectly fine. What I have noticed is that newer high sample rate recordings tend to be done with contemporary analogue to digital converters which audibly appear more natural than the early ADCs. I think (suspect) that it's the quality of the modern ADCs which make the sound better, not the high sample rates per se. A modern CD created using a modern ADC sounds very natural to my senses. I don't notice much significant differences between different sample rates. So I think CD quality is good. 3
Nada Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, eltech said: My observation is that CD quality 16 bit 44.1khz is perfectly fine. What I have noticed is that newer high sample rate recordings tend to be done with contemporary analogue to digital converters which audibly appear more natural than the early ADCs. I think (suspect) that it's the quality of the modern ADCs which make the sound better, not the high sample rates per se. A modern CD created using a modern ADC sounds very natural to my senses. I don't notice much significant differences between different sample rates. So I think CD quality is good. Yep CD sample rates played back on good gear can sound as good as it gets compared to "Hirez" formats. Depends on the recording engineering and gear of course. Have you got any ancient DAA CD's to compare with your modern CD's? Some digital mastering is great and some not so good. Some of the early CD's had very little digital mastering done via DAA. DAA stands for Digital/Analogue/Analogue recording/mixing/mastering. If the analogue recordings were good (lots were really awful) the CD's might sound good despite probably using older ADC to encode?
davewantsmoore Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) On 28/01/2019 at 11:24 AM, Tassie Devil said: How really compromised is 16/44 CD quality? It 100% depends on how it is used... both in recording, and in playback systems. Quote Now it is time to come to the point of this post. How does the hi-rez reproduction compare to CD standards with albums where I have both formats in the Roon system? One issues is that the "hi res" releases, are often not the same content that was released on the CD version. Making the comparison more than just the format. One way to arrange that yourself, is to get the "hi res" version... and then resample that audio to CD audio format (16/44). This way you can be sure that all you are comparing is the format itself. Edited February 3, 2019 by davewantsmoore
Nada Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, MattyW said: .......That said my DAC does seem to get a better result when fed DSD so I upsample in JRiver for all media. Theoretically there should be no difference, though there is. Depends on the DAC I guess? Some DACs dont have the best filters and sound better with computer upsampling. Also some rare DAC's have one bit delta-sigma noise shaper chip and are reported to sound better on high rate DSD. That kind of makes sense with one bit noise shaping conversions being directly fed their special one bit diet. Most modern DACs have superb filters and multibit delta-sigma controvertors and like you I have no idea why DSD upscalping would help?
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Nada said: Have you got any ancient DAA CD's to compare with your modern CD's? Yes I do. I agree that some sound good and others not so good. I have heard some European 70's prog albums which have recently been reissued on CD for the first time and they sound sooo smooth. Modern ADCs are awesome.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said: One way to arrange that yourself, is to get the "hi res" version... and then resample that audio to CD audio format (16/44). This way you can be sure that all you are comparing is the format itself And someone above said, your also comparing how the DAC performs with certain sample rates. I think that if one particular sample rate is sounding preferable, then it's probably a characteristic of the DAC, not necessarily the sample rate being better or worse.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, Ittaku said: I assume you meant AAD. No, with reference to Dave's comment regarding the audibility of sample rates, I am meaning how the DAC performs. Please see Dave's full comment for further understanding.
Ittaku Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Just now, eltech said: No, with reference to Dave's comment regarding the audibility of sample rates, I am meaning how the DAC performs. Please see Dave's full comment for further understanding. Ah okay, my bad, I just thought you were talking about CDs.
MattyW Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Nada said: Depends on the DAC I guess? Some DACs dont have the best filters and sound better with computer upsampling. Also some rare DAC's have one bit delta-sigma noise shaper chip and are reported to sound better on high rate DSD. That kind of makes sense with one bit noise shaping conversions being directly fed their special one bit diet. Most modern DACs have superb filters and multibit delta-sigma controvertors and like you I have no idea why DSD upscalping would help? Not sure hey, the Gieseler Gross is the most natural sounding DAC I've used. Just spectacular. The second best I've used uses 16x Phillips TDA1543 chips though certainly is short on bass and simply doesn't work correctly with USB (no reclocker). It's only shortcomings. If I can sort the bass shortage then that's one thing though I'm less likely to get around it's issues with USB. 1
bzr Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 The best recording's I've heard have been from 16/44.1 3
rantan Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 44 minutes ago, Ittaku said: Ah okay, my bad, I just thought you were talking about CDs. Not your bad at all. The thread title is somewhat ambiguous.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Ittaku said: Ah okay, my bad, I just thought you were talking about CDs. I was in my earlier comments.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 55 minutes ago, MattyW said: The second best I've used uses 16x Phillips TDA1543 chips though certainly is short on bass I think that if you put a buffer on the output you'd get bass from it. I'm guessing without knowing anything about your DAC, that it's just using the current of 16 chips to generate a voltage output through a resistor and perhaps a coupling cap. 1
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 58 minutes ago, bzr said: The best recording's I've heard have been from 16/44.1 Me too, just because I never heard a high res file sound better. Just as good, yes, unambiguously better, no. But that's just my experience so far.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 I even prefer 16/44.1 over DSD because although DSD seems to sound more like analogue tape, the few recordings Ive heard in DSD don't have the attack of PCM, they sound a little slow. Could be my DAC? Not sure. I haven't heard enough DSD DACs, (though I have heard two in my system) 1
davewantsmoore Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, eltech said: Me too, just because I never heard a high res file sound better. I've heard plenty sound better, often dramatically so..... but it's because the content is different to the CD. I've rarely taken a "high res" (eg. 24/192) .... and been able to hear the difference after it's resampled to a lower (eg. 1/4) rate.
eltech Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Just now, davewantsmoore said: I've heard plenty sound better, often dramatically so..... but it's because the content is different to the CD Oh right. I don't go chasing after the high res stuff. I usually if anything chase the early CDs which aren't brick walled. My only experience is really with modern reissues of older albums.
Recommended Posts