The digital difference – Can digital audio sound different?

[WmAx]

I'm interested in realistic audio reproduction. That is, audio reproduction that no one can tell apart from the real thing. I'm also interested in CD technology. Has the technology reached it's performance limit? Can any new CD players produce more accurate sounds than current players offer?

These are very different from the things you wrote about. Tubes and single driver speaker technology can not, at this time, compete with other technologies in terms of realism.

Enjoy,
Panther

Since testimonials seem to be so big, I'll add one as to depart from my standard formula for a moment. I'de hate to be accused of being 'same' again. I make it clear that the following is my opinion(I make not claim as to this being fact) and opinions of most people that have listened to my stereo with a limited set of very high quality purist recordings that I have preselected and set levels to each track in pre-ordained manner:

It is percieved as real, on trumpet, piano, vocal, etc..

This is with compact discs on solid state equipment with multi-way speakers. So I personally feel that CD is adequate if it can sound real to others and myself. It needs a few more channels -- that would be useful in subtle rear ambience retrieval for orchestra and opera, and that is the only thing that the Hi-Res formats bring to the table that is worth a darn IMO.

-Chris

 

[b_panther_g]

The results were that it could not be identified(speakers vs. live).

-Chris

I can't believe that I've never heard of this...That's really interesting news.

But, if we were to take that as face value, doesn't that mean that the only 2 things missing from a perfect audio reproduction is dynamic range and a better acoustic system?

Actually, now that I think about what you wrote, the experiments were conducted in an anechoic environment. That is a very unnatural place to listen to anything. Assuming the experiment was done properly, the question now is...

Was it the environment that masked the differences, or is it all about the dynamics and acoustics?

Chris, or anyone else, do you know of anyone that is continuing Dunlavy's research?

I'd really like to know about the latest advancement(s).

Thanks again.

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[miklorsmith]

Phil

The discussion of the mule was in no way related to his love a particular speaker or any other belief or opinion that he has stated here. It was simply because his writing style was so obtuse that it contributed little (some say it detracted) from the quality of the discussions on the forums. I don't think it was it suggested that his beliefs and opinions could not have a home here, just that he needed to state them more clearly.

I've been surfing these forums for a very long time and have seen you get in some pretty heated debates. I seem to remember that at one point you indicated that you didn't want to have much to do with this site (though that may have been someone else). I'd like to think that you'd realize that this site is one of the few (the only one I've ever found) that has given a home to those that don't believe in many of the high end audio beliefs (myths to some). While I for one welcome your opinions and continued participation, to suggest that you are being persecuted is akin to a fish complaining that there is not enough water on the land.

Too often a rabid audio nut will spend a week or two blasting the boards and it’s participants for not believing the intelligent chip (or magic rocks or whatever) generally contributing little to the discussion. You are well spoken (or typed), think through your opinions, back up your opinions with at least personal experience, and generally treat others with at least the same (if not greater) amount of respect that they have shown you. I have the impression that if an experiment that was conducted by Gene or Clint contradicted your beliefs and experiences, you would at least reevaluate your opinion. If some posts have hurt your feelings or seemed too harsh, I hope that you look past it and continue to contribute. If you decide not to, I’m sorry to see you go. I’m sure the wheat over at Audio Asylum is just a boring as the corn here.

I hate to quote an entire post, but this is a good one, and I feel compelled to respond. The reference to Mule reflects my belief that diversity is good. Based on Mule's latest ramblings, I have no trouble reading them or understanding the references. I think he gets the screaming hint. Absent extraordinary circumstances, trimming the herd and reducing diversity is unwarranted In My Opinion.

This is unrelated in subject matter but wholly correlates with my central point, which is that dissenting views should be encouraged here, and at your job, and in politics. People are rarely entirely right and active dialog can help participants and observers get closer to the truth.

I did send a "kiss off" post some time back and had myself a cooling-off period. One-against-many is rarely fun and we had a series of arguments that all led to the same angered conclusion. I deduced the direction I wanted to go (grow, change, learn) was not being fostered here and essentially stated that. Had there been more "other" viewpoints, I may have been able to glean sufficient information and support to continue on. Ultimately, I lost my cool and there you go.

I have spent less time here lately, preferring to graze more amicable pastures. Thus, I certainly understand the comfort zone. FWIW, I can't keep up with AA. Everything flies by too fast there. There's good information, but you have to be online there continuously to participate. I don't have any plans to forever leave here, as there is definitely good information to be had.

My views have moderated considerably since spending time here. I don't rush to tweak nearly as quickly anymore. I still believe in the potential, but I am more skeptical on a case-by-case basis. I attribute this to this site and for that am grateful. Unquestionably, there is intelligence here. It's direction is different from mine, and that's OK.

The fish/land thing is funny. I'll remember that for future reference, hopefully when you're not paying attention. I'm not trying to cry persecution, merely defending the concept of thought contraire.

WmAx - I have failed at nothing. You know I'm not a scientist and can't wait around for science that ain't going where I need to go. I AM glad your system kicks tail! My statements about multi-driver arrangements are indicative only of my experience with them. I have heard many systems of this type but don't pretend to have heard them all.

I am the voice from the other side that you should welcome to the fold. We have a lot to say.

 

[Tom Andry]

I am the voice from the other side

The ...gasp... dark side?
















Dad?

 

[mtrycrafts]

The only CD that springs to mind just now as sounding excellent is the Grandaddy album 'Sumday'.

So then it is not the CD medium that is at fault, is it? Perhaps you were used to hearing the vinyl for a long time and got used to it how it should sound?

Easy to make poor discs and must work to get it right. To most peole those CDs are fine, hence there is no real need for them to cater to the audiofile minority. Have you troed some Telarc or Mapleshade Cds?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I agree wholeheartedly...
BTW, when I speak about errors, I am also referring to omissions. A digital filter can reproduce a representation of an analog waveform. But does that representation have the resolution to be audibly transparent?

Yes, absolutely transparent to the master analog tape even.

This leads to the bigger question... If the current state of digital recordings can capture everything that we can hear, then why is there a difference?

Well, now that is a lot you said there. Difference between what and what? What are we comparing. And, most likely how was that differences arrived at?
Don't forget, if you compare sighted, you have biase that cannot be turned off. If your levels are mismatched, there will be differences, of course, right? Easy to do.



As good as our audio systems are, there is still a difference between them and the real thing.


Oh, yes. Many factors for this. As WmAx mentioned, recording differences. playback venue is wholly different. The acoustics is different.

BUT, two channels just cannot capture a live event, not possible no matter who tells you that mythology and perhaps not even 5.1 can do it. You can only capture so much with a mic and play back with speakers.

However, we are not discussing differences between live and playback, are we???



I'm referring to a relatively simple task. A system that sounds as real as a single piano playing softly.

Still you have an acoustic space to be captured by the mics and reproduced in a different acoustiuc space. Again, that is not what we are discussing about differences. This needs to be a separate thread

I am aware that most of the problems lie with the speaker(s) and room acoustics. But I'm not willing to say that the recordings themselves are perfect.

Now we are talking You are trying to capture a complex event and what one engineer may consider best, the other may not. Now we have artistic taste entering the picture

Nor am I willing to say that the players are perfect either.

What do you mean perfect? If you cannot audibly differentiate between them, what do you call that? What perfection are you after? 0 frequency variation? To how many decimal places? Same with the other specs.

You think a live event is perfect? Whose standards are you using? Whose yardstick? Yours or mine? Why are different concert halls sound so different? Which is perfect???



Do you think CD and CD players are perfect (or are audibly transparent)?

Yes, to the recorded input signals only, not a live event.



If so, do you believe all our efforts should be placed in improving the mechanical aspects of recording and reproduction?

Yes. That is th emost difficult to date

 

[mtrycrafts]

Tubes and single driver speaker technology can not, at this time, compete with other technologies in terms of realism.

Enjoy,
Panther

That is a mouthfull
I predict they never will. Inherently flawed

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can't believe that I've never heard of this...That's really interesting news.


Enjoy,
Panther

Unfortunately Dunlavy was around some time ago for some time, certainly not a major player like Sony or JBL who has been around beyond memory

but John has done research and experimentations and was on the web for a good but some time back, in the mid to late 1990s
Maybe before your time in audio or the web? I wasn't aware of him until the net either What a great invention

 

[WmAx]

BUT, two channels just cannot capture a live event, not possible no matter who tells you that mythology and perhaps not even 5.1 can do it. You can only capture so much with a mic and play back with speakers.

This is not true. Binaural recording and playback will reproduce the event accurately. Binaural playback in an accurate manner may not be feasible for consumer use, but it does do the job when executed properly. Binaural recording is performed with 2 channels.

Additionally, I feel it's important to distinct 'capture a live event' from 'sounding like a like event'. While for traditional playback methods(stereo loudspeakers), 2 channel recording can not accurately capture the event, 2 channels can be percieved as realistic(but not an accurate reproduction) under the appropriate specific condition(s). The minimum number of channels required to reproduce an accurate diffuse field(immersive acoustic field that can not be localized), I am lead to believe from recent research is [1]4 under specific placment and a centralized listener position.

-Chris

Footnotes
[1] The Minimum Number of Loudspeakers and its Arrangement for Reproducing the Spatial Impression of Diffuse Sound Field
AES Preprint Number: 5696 Convention: 113 (September 2002)
Authors: Hiyama, Koichiro; Komiyama, Setsu; Hamasaki, Kimio

 

[tbewick]

I haven't tried any Terlarc/Mapleshade labels, in response to Mtrycrafts question, but I have heard that they have an excellent reputation for producing high quality CD's.

In response to Rip Van Woofer's question, I listen to classical mainly on the radio and when my dad plays a classical LP. As for the classical CD's I do own, the sound quality is fairly inconsistent. An example of this is the Mackerra's arrangement of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies, where the fifth sounds superb but the nineth isn't so good.

I read the Audioholics article that blamed digital clipping (audio data on the CD goes above 0dBFS) for why some CD's sound bad. I copied a clip of the album Zwan - Mary Star of the Sea on to my computer and viewed the waveform. Sure enough, a large proportion of the samples were clipped. The problem is though that I have no means of knowing if this clipping is deliberate (ie. on the original mix), or caused by my CD-ROM drive not being able to reproduce CD audio data above 0dBFS without distorting.

 

[annunaki]

I'm as puzzled as b_panther_g. I don't really understand Rob Babcock's statement. I looked at a Marantz CD player and quoted frequency response was 20Hz-20kHz +/-1 dB (ie. highly linear).

My dad's LP's on his top-end Thorens record player all sound great but virtually all my CD's stink in terms of sound quality, be it using a 24-bit DAC or 1-bit MASH.

I think I'm switching to vinyl - most CD's are just sound rubbish, whatever the specs say. I find that applying some tonal adjustment is the only way to get the most out of a lot of my CD's. The only CD that springs to mind just now as sounding excellent is the Grandaddy album 'Sumday'.

My question to you would be what kind of music are you listening to? Could it be that the mastering and producing is just really bad? i.e. 90% of music released today.

 

[annunaki]

This is why CD's today (or most of them anyways) sound really bad, compared to ones that were made by bands ack in the 70's. Dynamic Range. Now-a-days, CD's dont have much dynamic range which means that everything on the CD is AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE! With a ton of cliiping to boot.

Many recordings today have only 7db-9db of dynamic range. When compared to good recordings of the late '80s, with dynamic ranges approaching 25db, they pale in comparision. Especially in said realism and emotion.

 

[WmAx]

The problem is though that I have no means of knowing if this clipping is deliberate (ie. on the original mix), or caused by my CD-ROM drive not being able to reproduce CD audio data above 0dBFS without distorting.

There is nothing above 0dBfs, it's the ceiling of the digital format. A reference point. Therefor you can not reproduce anything above 0dBfs. However, some error correction systems may attempt to 'soften' clipping using a computational function -- but this is not reproduction, it is correction.

There is no reason(ZERO, NADA, NO FU**ING EXCUSE ) to ever clip a 16 bit recording except for [1] incompetance [2] stupidity. Yet, most recordings today contain lots of clipped waveforms(!). It is even spreading to the audiophile labels, apparently. I have a recent Telarc recording that is clipped severely. This is especially odd since this company usually produces high quality recordings, but alas, it(clipping) is everywhere!

-Chris

 

[Dan Banquer]

Cd Players

"There is nothing above 0dBfs, it's the ceiling of the digital format."
Send me your e mail address because I have a paper for you put out by T.C. Electronics that outlines the problem of Intersample Peaking where you can get peaks over 0 dbfs. In addition; If you use the 1 kHz square wave test on the CBS CD1 test disc, many players due to their filter/converter construction will send this wave form above 0 dbfs. Others (with NPC Digital filters in particular) will clip anything over 0 dbfs. For anyone looking for more info on some of the issues that the moderator was referring to go here:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/currentrecordingtrendsP1.php

Hope this helps;
d.b.

 

[WmAx]

"There is nothing above 0dBfs, it's the ceiling of the digital format."
Send me your e mail address because I have a paper for you put out by T.C. Electronics that outlines the problem of Intersample Peaking where you can get peaks over 0 dbfs. In addition; If you use the 1 kHz square wave test on the CBS CD1 test disc, many players due to their filter/converter construction will send this wave form above 0 dbfs.

By 'nothing', I refer to the storage medium and what is actually recorded. The possibility of amplitude values(due to playback artifacts and/or correction systems) from the player that exceed 0dBfs are not what I was referring to.

My email: wmax@linaeum.com

Thanks.

-Chris

 

[b_panther_g]

BTW, when I speak about errors, I am also referring to omissions. A digital filter can reproduce a representation of an analog waveform. But does that representation have the resolution to be audibly transparent?

Yes, absolutely transparent to the master analog tape even.


Hey mrtycrafts,

In this instance, the digital filters I was referring to were those used in CD players – not SOTA digital recording tech.


Hey annunaki,

“Many recordings today have only 7db-9db of dynamic range...”

I didn't know it was that bad. IMHO people should lose their jobs for letting something like that get released. People could make better recordings on their laptop.

It might be time to look at this hobby from a different perspective. Why bother debating/questioning/examining the possible difference(s) between hardware, when the software we buy is sooooooooooo lacking?

Anyone want to start a recording studio and do it right? LOL

Enjoy

 

[mtrycrafts]

The market is small, too much headaches as few artists are interested. No radio station would be. A business needs to make money. A charity is a different issue. Let me think about that

 

[tbewick]

It's a shame if (intentionally?) poor mixing is to blame for why so many CD's sound so bad. Perhaps one of the worst sounding CD tracks I've heard is ' Spectacular' on Graham Coxon's Happiness In Magazines. It is very harsh. What's confusing is that when played on MTV2 the sound of this track is fine.

I'd also agree on the point of many CD's having poor dynamic range. There are however some CD's (like that Mackerras recording) I own that have superb dynamic range.

 

[Dan Banquer]

CD players

One of the advantages of having a web site is the ability to archive articles that pertain to a lot what this thread is presently all about. To the "thewick", & b_panther and others please go to the following link.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/currentrecordingtrendsP1.php

Please also refer to many of the articles by Chris Tam in the Spec's and Formats area of this website.

To the moderator: I think it would be a great help to many folks if you could assist in directing people to these links, that are of use in this thread. Chris Tam, myself and GDS have put a lot of work into these articles and they are for the people who are on these forums to read and educate themselves.
Hope this helps.
d.b.

 

[markw]

I think you're finally getting the real picture here.

It might be time to look at this hobby from a different perspective. Why bother debating/questioning/examining the possible difference(s) between hardware, when the software we buy is sooooooooooo lacking?

...and the blind shall see.

The speakers* and the source software are the most important factors in the sound of a system. The final product can't be any better then these.

IOW, the arguments about digital sound, amplifier differences and everything else in between is moot when compared to these.

*and/or phono cartridges. Both are transducers which intentionaly have euphonic tendancies designed into them.