or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Digital Music Files: 16/44.1, 24/88, 24/96, 24/192
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digital Music Files: 16/44.1, 24/88, 24/96, 24/192 - Page 3

post #61 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post

take a look here: http://www.audioholics.com/education...-part-5-page-2
shows that CD layer has clipping where as SACD does not clip.
Also see following: http://www.audioholics.com/education...ion-depression
Showing industry practice for compressing CDs to make them play louder, while destroying dynamics. This is most prevalent in pop music.

So what? All you've shown is that recording engineers can compress recordings on CD. There's nothing that says they must do so. You deliberately chose to focus only on compression done on pop CDs for marketing reasons, not technical reasons, while choosing to ignore the fact that there are plenty of CDs that are NOT compressed.



Quote:


RobertR - I looked up the speakers used in the test

No, you looked up ONE pair of speakers used in the test. As with CD compression, you deliberately omitted facts that don't support your argument. Other speakers were used as well, in addition to the Snells.
post #62 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post

Dynamic range is calculated as follows SACD = 24 bits x 6 = 144 dB, CD = 16 bits x 6 = 96 dB (without noise shaping/filter)

You obviously don't understand SACD. I've already proven this to you once with an authoritative reference, but your posts seem to be coming from some alternative universe of your own invention.

No way is SACD a 24 bit system. It is a bitstream system that is in many ways equivalent to a PCM system. If it were going to be compared to a PCM system then a 20 bit system might be some kind of an approximation.



Quote:
Those are both theoretical limits - best possible. In practical terms I would agree that SACD is probably limited to 120 dB due to other components in the player.

Completely and utterly wrong. The SACD format has the limits that I have documented for it from a reliable source. A given implementation of a player may an likely will further limit its performance, but 120 dB is the format's limit.

Quote:
Now CD's real dynamic range is significantly lower as recording studios can't use all 16 bits due to the brick wall filter (noise shaping) that has to be applied.

Again, completely and utterly wrong. Noise shaping has zero to do with the brick wall filter. The brick wall filter has to do with bandwidth and the frequency domain, while noise shaping has to do with dynamic range in the amplitude domain. The two domains are orthogonal, which means that their
performance and operation are configured independently.

Quote:
So dynamic range can only go down, not up from 96.

I used different wording to convey a completely different meaning. If you could convince me that you are educatable and correctable, I might try to explain that to you as well.

Quote:
Most recordings are 14 or 15 bits which puts the real dynamic range between 84 to 90 dB.

Again totally and utterly wrong. All audio CD recordings are 16 bits. However, the analog information that was digitally coded for them generally has less dynamic range than the CD format.

The posts I've responded to show very poor understanding of even just the meanings of the words that are apparently glibly thrown into them.
post #63 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post


I have worked on recording only 1 CD - my ex wife's.

I find that very easy to believe, all of it. It is easy to see that at most you've only worked on 1 production, that your involvement was secondary, and that it involved a broken relationship.

I'm sure everybody went away mad, leaving tufts of hair on the floor and head-shaped dents in the walls.


Quote:
And know from having actually done it, the ONLY you can fit a real dynamic performance on a CD is with compression, which cuts off the transient peaks.

I can't let this additional false claim just sit there.

Compression does not cut off transient peaks. It turns down the gain for the duration of the peak in order to avoid cutting off the peaks.

The canonical production operation that intentionally cuts off peaks is called "limiting", not compression.
post #64 of 217
Format wars are like headless Zombie wars. You can shoot holes in the other side all day long but they still come at you.
post #65 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


That sort of thinking became irrelevant when we started having amplifiers with more than 20 watts! ;-)

But isn't true that even the most powerful amplifier will fall far short of reaching reference levels when coupled with inefficient speakers?
post #66 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

But isn't true that even the most powerful amplifier will fall far short of reaching reference levels when coupled with inefficient speakers?

The least efficient commercial home hi fi speaker I know of has if memory serves 82 dB/W sensitivity. The most powerful commercial amp I know of does 5 Kw which is 37 dBW. Putting the two together would give us 119 dB SPL, which seems loud enough to constitute some kind of a reference level. ;-)

Trouble is that the 82 dB/W speaker I'm thinking of will probably only handle peaks of like 220-250 watts. I know I've popped its fuses with a DH 220.
post #67 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The least efficient commercial home hi fi speaker I know of has if memory serves 82 dB/W sensitivity. The most powerful commercial amp I know of does 5 Kw which is 37 dBW. Putting the two together would give us 119 dB SPL, which seems loud enough to constitute some kind of a reference level. ;-)

Trouble is that the 82 dB/W speaker I'm thinking of will probably only handle peaks of like 220-250 watts. I know I've popped its fuses with a DH 220.

But are you taking into consideration the listening distance in your calculation? I am strictly talking from movie perspective, in which case we are talking about a listening distance of about 10 feet more or less. I always thought efficient speakers are essential in movies.
post #68 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

But are you taking into consideration the listening distance in your calculation? I am strictly talking from movie perspective, in which case we are talking about a listening distance of about 10 feet more or less. I always thought efficient speakers are essential in movies.

I presented evidence that can be used to support the idea that efficient speakers are a good idea in large rooms or if you want loud sound. OK, I got to 119 dB SPL with a 82 dB/W speaker, but it took a huge multi-killowatt watt amp to do it, and the speakers to handle that kind of power may or may not exist with just one direct radiator driver per frequency range.

If you rerun the calculations with "typical" efficiency speakers which are maybe 90 dB/W then it takes more like 29 dBW or about 900 watts to get 119 dB SPL with one speaker at 1 meter. That's actually an almost thinkable power amp that might be able run on house wiring.

I'm also not considering that more than 1 speaker would be playing at the same time which means more SPL.

I'm also not considering whether the listener is inside or outside the critical distance for the room. If he's beyond the critical distance then he is in the reverberant field and SPL does not drop off with distance nearly as aggressively.

I admit it, I'm kinda just throwing numbers around here - if people want serious engineering they can pay for it! We really haven't agreed what "reference level" is. I would put it around 105 dB SPL - that is 85 dB average SPL with another 20 dB worth of crest factor. Or, maybe 110 dB.

115-120 dB @ 1 KHz is just too loud - its potential for ear damage is too great, except at very low frequencies. 120 dB @ 15 Hz is a nice thundering sound and doesn't really hurt the ears very rapidly.
post #69 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefthandluke View Post

absolutely no help to those who haven't or don't...

You mean you have no idea of the citation being discussed???

And, it appears, you don't have any to share to support your claims, right? After all, you did make some claims without supporting evidence.
post #70 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

You mean you have no idea of the citation being discussed???

He used to sing a different song back in post 3 on this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lefthandluke View Post

"there's published evidence that listeners CAN tell the difference between redbook and higher resolutions. that goes for both bit depth and sampling rate..."

Quote:


And, it appears, you don't have any to share to support your claims, right?

He seemed to think he did...

Quote:


After all, you did make some claims without supporting evidence.

..and when pressed for the evidence he seemed to have, he started complaining that we were being unfair.
post #71 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That sort of thinking became irrelevant when we started having amplifiers with more than 20 watts! ;-)

You forget about driver compression - I have pointed this out but you continue forget that detail.

Go read up on it you might learn something to clarify your thinking.

Just because a speaker say it can handle 250 watt, it does not mean that ALL 250 watts is being transformed into audio output.

In the low efficiency speakers significant portion goes to heat rather than audio output, thus you never get the performance that you image you are getting.
post #72 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I find that very easy to believe, all of it. It is easy to see that at most you've only worked on 1 production, that your involvement was secondary, and that it involved a broken relationship.

I'm sure everybody went away mad, leaving tufts of hair on the floor and head-shaped dents in the walls.

I can't let this additional false claim just sit there.

Compression does not cut off transient peaks. It turns down the gain for the duration of the peak in order to avoid cutting off the peaks.

The canonical production operation that intentionally cuts off peaks is called "limiting", not compression.

You have no clue what you are talking about.
It is EXACTLY that turning down of of the gain that DESTROYS the dynamics of the live performance. And it HAS to be done with CD recordings exactly due to the LIMITATIONS of the format

You just proved my point about lost - destroyed dynamics in CD recordings !!!

If CD audio 16bits/44.1kHz was such a perfect reproduction format then the production companies would have continued to use it in DVD production.
None do for OBVIOUS reasons - 24bit/96kHz gives a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT in sound quality.

However, there are no DVD shows recorded with CD sound.
And a great majority of productions where there is a DVD of a show and a corresponding CD of the show, the sound from the DVD IS superior.

Thus if YOU can't tell the difference in sound quality, then the answer is obvious - IT IS the limitations of YOUR reproduction equipment (low efficiency speakers, etc...) combined with YOUR challenged hearing that cause you to go harping on and on with utter ignorance.

Like I said previously - if you are happy in your ignorance with low resolution audio, then good for you. But you do not need to insist on spreading your ignorance. So please go enjoy you CDs
post #73 of 217
hoo boy...

arny, you are a more patient man than i...
post #74 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post

You have no clue what you are talking about.
It is EXACTLY that turning down of of the gain that DESTROYS the dynamics of the live performance. And it HAS to be done with CD recordings exactly due to the LIMITATIONS of the format

You just proved my point about lost - destroyed dynamics in CD recordings !!!

My friend, you just proved (unfortunately once again!) that you don't understand dynamic range.

Dynamic range is not about turning down or up, it is about the ratio of the loudest sound to the softest sound. When you turn the volume up or down you don't change the ratio of the loudest sound to the softest sound unless you turn things up so loud that there is clipping and parts of the loudest sound are lost, or if you turn things down so far that the music gets buried in the noise.


Quote:


If CD audio 16bits/44.1kHz was such a perfect reproduction format then the production companies would have continued to use it in DVD production.

Almost all DVDs have their sound recorded in a format known as Dolby Digital 5.1 or AC3. Care to guess how many bits are encoded in AC3 audio samples?

The answer is no more than 16. And, the sample rate is 48 KHz:

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_52-2010.pdf

Quote:


None do for OBVIOUS reasons - 24bit/96kHz gives a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT in sound quality.

Well, you were wrong about SACD and now you are wrong about AC3.



Quote:


However, there are no DVD shows recorded with CD sound.

I guess you never heard of dual-layer SACDs.

I guess you never heard about the kinds of audio data that the standard video DVD format supports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video

"PCM: 48 kHz or 96 kHz sampling rate, 16 bit or 24 bit Linear PCM, 2 to 6 channels, up to 6,144 kbit/s. N.B. 16-bit 48 kHz 8 channel PCM is allowed by the DVD-Video specification but is not well-supported by authoring applications or players."
post #75 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

hoo boy...

arny, you are a more patient man than i...

I hope that lurkers will become more educated about the relevant issues as I deal with the spew of misapprehensions. ;-)
post #76 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I hope that lurkers will become more educated about the relevant issues as I deal with the spew of misapprehensions. ;-)

It's working! At least I am absorbing every word (from the logical camp).

What gets me is that much of this is common sense, which I will always believe is a relevant factor when attempting to dissect and understand science. It appears to be somewhat lacking, or at least highly selective in many cases among audiophile circles.
post #77 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post

You forget about driver compression - I have pointed this out but you continue forget that detail.

Go read up on it you might learn something to clarify your thinking.

I don't forget things nearly as much as I leave them out in order to make my posts more understandable to many lurkers.

I knew about driver compression for years when I first read this JAES paper:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2892

Check the date - I was 33 at the time. ;-)


Quote:


Just because a speaker say it can handle 250 watt, it does not mean that ALL 250 watts is being transformed into audio output.

At that power level, the more noticeable effect is a little bit of the driver voice coil disappearing in a puff of smoke or varnish bubbling and locking the cone in place. ;-)

Driver compression often starts being significant at far lower power levels. The two most common causes are voice coil heating and nonlinear distortion.

Quote:


In the low efficiency speakers significant portion goes to heat rather than audio output, thus you never get the performance that you image you are getting.

Right and this is where low efficiency drivers are more likely to get into trouble at high SPLs. Since they have to handle more power to generate a given SPL, there is a greater liklihood of voice coil heating becoming an issue.

The counterpoint is that high effeciency low frequency drivers tend to have relatively small Xmax as compared similar sized drivers of the low efficiency persuasion. High efficiency (ca. 100 dB/W) LF drivers that have more than 14 mm Xmax are relatively rare and tend to be expensive, while low efficiency drivers with > 30 mm Xmax are both commonly available and relatively inexpensive.
post #78 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

hoo boy...

arny, you are a more patient man than i...

It was fun for a while watching Dionyz dig a hole, jump in, then pull the dirt on top. Now, not so much.

I'm learning though, so thanks Arny.
post #79 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

My friend, you just proved (unfortunately once again!) that you don't understand dynamic range.

Dynamic range is not about turning down or up, it is about the ratio of the loudest sound to the softest sound. When you turn the volume up or down you don't change the ratio of the loudest sound to the softest sound unless you turn things up so loud that there is clipping and parts of the loudest sound are lost, or if you turn things down so far that the music gets buried in the noise.

If you turn something down you are reducing its output and thus its audible impact. Thus if you are listening at 85dB and you have a peak (in live performance) of another 20 dB you would have 105 dB. Now if you turn down the amplitude to accommodate the limitations of the CD format, you will NOT have the same impact in CD reproduction as in live performance.
Thus you have altered the dynamics of the music.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Almost all DVDs have their sound recorded in a format known as Dolby Digital 5.1 or AC3. Care to guess how many bits are encoded in AC3 audio samples?

The answer is no more than 16. And, the sample rate is 48 KHz:

[URL="http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_52-2010.pdf"
View Post

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_52-2010.pdf[/url]

Lot of DVD movies were recorded in AC3.
However, I only buy shows on DVD that are either DTS or PCM (24 bits per your own post), which allow greater dynamics or in blu-ray.

DTS is 24 bit 96kHz format
http://www.audioholics.com/education...of-the-formats

So obviously you are wrong again !!

Quote:
Just because a speaker say it can handle 250 watt, it does not mean that ALL 250 watts is being transformed into audio output.
At that power level, the more noticeable effect is a little bit of the driver voice coil disappearing in a puff of smoke or varnish bubbling and locking the cone in place. ;-)

Driver compression often starts being significant at far lower power levels. The two most common causes are voice coil heating and nonlinear distortion.

[quote=In the low efficiency speakers significant portion goes to heat rather than audio output, thus you never get the performance that you image you are getting.
Right and this is where low efficiency drivers are more likely to get into trouble at high SPLs. Since they have to handle more power to generate a given SPL, there is a greater liklihood of voice coil heating becoming an issue.

The counterpoint is that high effeciency low frequency drivers tend to have relatively small Xmax as compared similar sized drivers of the low efficiency persuasion. High efficiency (ca. 100 dB/W) LF drivers that have more than 14 mm Xmax are relatively rare and tend to be expensive, while low efficiency drivers with > 30 mm Xmax are both commonly available and relatively inexpensive.[/QUOTE]

Thus as I stated and by your confirmation - with low efficiency speakers, by applying lots of power, in an effort to reproduce dynamic peaks will either introduce so much distortion that you have to turn them down or burn up the driver.
Thus in either case you are unable to reproduce the full dynamic peaks you have in live music. And additionally this also does not allow you to reproduce full peaks of hi-res music, making you unable to hear the benefits.

Thank you for re-affirming the point I have been making all along



xmax >30 mm common and inexpensive? You are full of it!
There are no full range speakers under $10,000 that I know of, that use drivers with xmax >30mm.

It may be available in only a few and expensive sub-woofer drivers.
Anyone can confirm this by looking at Parts Express or US Speaker sites.
But we are talking about speakers and not sub-woofers.

Most woofer drivers used in full range speakers (not subs) have xmax <15mm
High efficiency speakers have woofer drivers with a slightly lower xmax of about 10mm, which is not a problem, since as I have shown you before 105 dB speaker reaches 120 db with 30 watts, which does not bring it anywhere close to its xmax.
post #80 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post


If you turn something down you are reducing its output and thus its audible impact. Thus if you are listening at 85dB and you have a peak (in live performance) of another 20 dB you would have 105 dB. Now if you turn down the amplitude to accommodate the limitations of the CD format, you will NOT have the same impact in CD reproduction as in live performance.
Thus you have altered the dynamics of the music.



Lot of DVD movies were recorded in AC3.
However, I only buy shows on DVD that are either DTS or PCM (24 bits per your own post), which allow greater dynamics or in blu-ray.

DTS is 24 bit 96kHz format
http://www.audioholics.com/education...of-the-formats

So obviously you are wrong again !!

Quote:
Just because a speaker say it can handle 250 watt, it does not mean that ALL 250 watts is being transformed into audio output.
At that power level, the more noticeable effect is a little bit of the driver voice coil disappearing in a puff of smoke or varnish bubbling and locking the cone in place. ;-)

Driver compression often starts being significant at far lower power levels. The two most common causes are voice coil heating and nonlinear distortion.

My god... one lossy format is better than the other now!
post #81 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


I hope that lurkers will become more educated about the relevant issues as I deal with the spew of misapprehensions. ;-)

I'm one of the lurkers!
post #82 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

I'm one of the lurkers!

I was a "local meet" lurker before Saturday.
post #83 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

My god... one lossy format is better than the other now!

Sorry pokevin - that was not the intent - just clarifying that DTS & PCM can be 24 bit 96kHz, and not get into a lossy format (which DTS is and PCM is not) discussion.
post #84 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post


Sorry pokevin - that was not the intent - just clarifying that DTS & PCM can be 24 bit 96kHz, and not get into a lossy format (which DTS is and PCM is not) discussion.

Ahh ok good to go! Back to cave for me
post #85 of 217
I'm mostly staying out of this, but I have to comment on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post

If you turn something down you are reducing its output and thus its audible impact. Thus if you are listening at 85dB and you have a peak (in live performance) of another 20 dB you would have 105 dB. Now if you turn down the amplitude to accommodate the limitations of the CD format, you will NOT have the same impact in CD reproduction as in live performance. Thus you have altered the dynamics of the music.

That's just wrong. If the mastering engineer sets the volume so the loudest part of the program is just below 0 dBFS on the CD, then all the listener has to do is set their volume control so that loudest part outputs 105 dB SPL. This is very basic math. It's not even algebra.

--Ethan
post #86 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionyz View Post


For if you do not know what you are missing (not having heard it) you cannot miss it.
I am done wasting my time - I wish you continued bliss in your ignorance.

Do you now know why the objectivists rule this forum? It's not because they are right, but they simply have more endurance!
post #87 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIK View Post

Do you now know why the objectivists rule this forum? It's not because they are right, but they simply have more endurance!

No, it's both.
post #88 of 217
Quote:


Do you now know why the objectivists rule this forum? It's not because they are right, but they simply have more endurance!

Interesting theory. So why do you think they don't dominate other forums (Audiogon, Asylum)? Is it that the subjectivists here are wimps?
post #89 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

I'm mostly staying out of this, but I have to comment on this:



That's just wrong. If the mastering engineer sets the volume so the loudest part of the program is just below 0 dBFS on the CD, then all the listener has to do is set their volume control so that loudest part outputs 105 dB SPL. This is very basic math. It's not even algebra.

--Ethan

In theory - yes.

That is how it should be done, however, if that was done in practice, the actual average volume of a CD would be too low for most people.

90%+ of mastering engineers target a typical average volume and adjust peaks to fit the limitations of the CD format.
I have recorded CD and have friends in the industry and that is what is done.

Hi res audio recoded digitally 24bit/96kHz or better does not have same dynamics limitation and thus when it is recorded in hi res and then sold to consumer either in SACD or DVD/Blu-ray with 24/96 the mastering engineer does not have to reduce the peaks as he does for CD.
post #90 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

You mean you have no idea of the citation being discussed???

And, it appears, you don't have any to share to support your claims, right? After all, you did make some claims without supporting evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

He used to sing a different song back in post 3 on this thread:





He seemed to think he did...





..and when pressed for the evidence he seemed to have, he started complaining that we were being unfair.




aww c'mon guys...please tell me you're kidding
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Digital Music Files: 16/44.1, 24/88, 24/96, 24/192