24/192 music downloads are useless??

[Irvrobinson]

For classical music there are often problems. I have a number of discs where in the mastering they ran out of bits, and that is audible.

For low level signal you must use enough white noise, dither, to avoid low level signal distortion, which is severe if not done properly.

When I master I generally use a higher sampling rate and then convert down. I always check the peak of a file, which WaveLab allows you to do easily, to make sure there is just a little head room.

Recording sessions are, IMO, the real justification for long word lengths. It's better to have the headroom and down-convert later.

I also have a couple of classical CDs where they have the tell-tale distortion of "running out of bits", which is really word length. In my case those recordings were made directly to 16 bit format, not the more typical 18, 20 or 24 bit format more modern recordings were made with.

[Irvrobinson]

I think it actually would be better to have a slightly higher sampling rate. It does provide a safety net.

How does a higher sampling rate provide a safety net?

[TLS Guy]

How does a higher sampling rate provide a safety net?

The issue is that CD 16/44.1 at least in the classical arena is sailing very close to the wind. However it was the best achievable back then.

So to have a bit more leeway, bigger files I think would be a benefit.

CDs can be downloaded with cue file now. I think CD probably could move to download.

For hard copy, I think BD audio only and BD with video is the way to go.

I really am very impressed with the audio of BD with multichannel and having the possibility of a picture with it a huge bonus.

Basically I'm just tickled pink with most of my BD purchases.

The whole problem now with CD, it is just good enough, and there are enough mastering engineers who get it wrong, because of the fine tolerance, I think there is advantage in moving on.

By the way it is not a frequency response issue, may power amps to not reproduce anything over 20 kHz.

[cpp]

The whole problem now with CD, it is just good enough,

CD to my ears is a lot better than crappy iTunes computer generated music. Good quality music from a CD well it all depends on the equipment used to make the disk, the mic's, the recording equipment and the room. A crappy made CD is just that, crappy music. Same for computer music, a sorry sound card, cheap speakers or those cheap ipod headphones well, you get what you get.

"Most recent remasters of popular music only sound like higher-resolution crap in their 24/96 24/192 glory."

[avnetguy]

I would have to agree that the biggest limitation is not the CD format but the all to common now, sub-par mastering. While 16 bit PCM sampled at 44.1kHz may loose a little bit of detail in the highest of heard frequencies, I doubt many (if not all) could tell the difference.

Steve

[djreef]

To read this article, much of I do agree with, you'd think this guy believes we've gone as far as we can with this from a software perspective. Sorry, I ain't buyin it. We're still a long way off from 'you are there live', and it can't all be hardware related.

DJ

[TLS Guy]

To read this article, much of I do agree with, you'd think this guy believes we've gone as far as we can with this from a software perspective. Sorry, I ain't buyin it. We're still a long way off from 'you are there live', and it can't all be hardware related.

DJ

I don't think it is the software which is the biggest barrier to the original sound right now.

I have some multi channel BD discs that get you very close indeed to the I'm there experience. In fact I think what I hear here is almost certainly better than all but the best seats in the house.

The spectral balance of all instruments is correct, with space around all the instruments and there is a good sense of the space and size of the hall. The dynamics and spl. are the same is the concert hall experience. There is no localization to the speakers, in fact no real cues to the fact it is reproduced music.

Even the audience applause puts you right in a seat in the concert hall with the illusion of the room being much, much bigger than it is.

So you, you can now get very close indeed to the original sound.

So recordings can now get you very close indeed to the original sound. In fact as good as makes no difference.

The bigger problem is that at this time it is not easily achieved.

[djreef]

I don't think it is the software which is the biggest barrier to the original sound right now.

I have some multi channel BD discs that get you very close indeed to the I'm there experience. In fact I think what I hear here is almost certainly better than all but the best seats in the house.

The spectral balance of all instruments is correct, with space around all the instruments and there is a good sense of the space and size of the hall. The dynamics and spl. are the same is the concert hall experience. There is no localization to the speakers, in fact no real cues to the fact it is reproduced music.

Even the audience applause puts you right in a seat in the concert hall with the illusion of the room being much, much bigger than it is.

So you, you can now get very close indeed to the original sound.

So recordings can now get you very close indeed to the original sound. In fact as good as makes no difference.

The bigger problem is that at this time it is not easily achieved.

No, I agree completely. Look, I defer to you when it comes to hardware issues, as you know infinitely more than I about such things. My perspective comes from more of a philosophical, theoretical background in that we may be selling the software perspective short given our acute limitations where the hardware is concerned. Until we figure out what the limiting component/s is/are in the hardware chain how are we to know whether the bitrate is adequate for true 'you are there' realism - dynamics, and all? Seriously, and I've proposed this in other threads - what is the next big thing that takes us there?

BTW Your personal experiences with 5.1 leads me to believe that your thinking is this is the future of audio. I dunno, I'm kinda hating the sound of that given my current setup.

DJ

[TLS Guy]

No, I agree completely. Look, I defer to you when it comes to hardware issues, as you know infinitely more than I about such things. My perspective comes from more of a philosophical, theoretical background in that we may be selling the software perspective short given our acute limitations where the hardware is concerned. Until we figure out what the limiting component/s is/are in the hardware chain how are we to know whether the bitrate is adequate for true 'you are there' realism - dynamics, and all? Seriously, and I've proposed this in other threads - what is the next big thing that takes us there?

BTW Your personal experiences with 5.1 leads me to believe that your thinking is this is the future of audio. I dunno, I'm kinda hating the sound of that given my current setup.

DJ

A number of observations.

In surround systems finding or building a suitable room is by far the biggest barrier. Honestly to bring off what I have done requires a purpose built room. Odd sized rooms, rooms with openings, asymmetrical furniture layout and poor dimensions ratios are not going to get you there. In these cases you probably are better off with 2.1 or 3.1.

Main and center speakers too close together is another big and frequent problem. Of the pictures posted by forum members I would guess in excess of 90% have their mains too close together. 8 to 12 feet is the range to aim for, with 9 to 11 ft being the real sweet spot in my view. It is absolutely impossible to throw a believable sound stage with main speakers closer than 8 ft.

So architecture is the toughest hurdle as far as I'm concerned. I understand from data dedicated rooms are becoming less rather than more popular. However if you poll my grandchildren, this is their absolute favorite room! My wife really likes it also and my children and spouses.

The next issue is that I don't think the any old puny speaker is adequate for realistic multi channel audio. All speakers have to be very good and neutral and able to achieve high spl when required. After all you would have to expect the reflected sound to match the forward sound, just like off axis and axis response of a speaker, or the result will be a downgrade no an enhancement.

I do think BD is better than SACD, and I think it is all to do with the ability to set the delays correctly in PCM systems. Correct delay is absolutely essential and it is never the measured distance.

As far as further improvements, it has to do with getting rid of passive crossovers and the wider introduction of zero phase shift digital crossovers and well as the development of affordable wide band drivers.

[jinjuku]

A number of observations.

In surround systems finding or building a suitable room is by far the biggest barrier. Honestly to bring off what I have done requires a purpose built room. Odd sized rooms, rooms with openings, asymmetrical furniture layout and poor dimensions ratios are not going to get you there. In these cases you probably are better off with 2.1 or 3.1.


Main and center speakers too close together is another big and frequent problem. Of the pictures posted by forum members I would guess in excess of 90% have their mains too close together. 8 to 12 feet is the range to aim for, with 9 to 11 ft being the real sweet spot in my view. It is absolutely impossible to throw a believable sound stage with main speakers closer than 8 ft.

Agreed. Having room is the only reason I did the Statements. If I didn't have the proper spacing I would have never attempted. Plus rooms that force one or more speakers into tight corner boundaries is all to common.

As far as further improvements, it has to do with getting rid of passive crossovers and the wider introduction of zero phase shift digital crossovers and well as the development of affordable wide band drivers.

Let me know if you are up to helping me design my first custom speaker. Using the Infinity Kappa 100.9w's sealed in a WMTMW where the MTM is open baffle.

The entire driver set is:

Kappa 100.9w (LR2 at ~300hz)
Zaph ZA14W08 for the mids
RS28F for the tweets (figure LR3 or 4 at ~1800hz)

The X-over points are just estimations.

I plan on a sandwiched frame that the woofer bins will be placed in that I can tighten / un tighten to toe in on the X axis.

Be using my DCX 2496 for X-Over duties.