or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD DAC Technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD DAC Technology - Page 2

post #31 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar81 View Post

Keep dreaming.

You and your alter ego can keep running around these forums


Well, your dreaming process is in full gear, it appears. Time to get a reality check?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar81 View Post

To the OP, trust your ears, .


And how is he supposed to do that? You mean he needs to rely on his eyes to tell him what he hears? That is what people seem to do and rely on. That is not trusting your ears but getting confused about reality.
post #32 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

If superior equipment means equipment that's prone to any sort of mechanical or air-borne vibration, I'll pass. You really should've taken me up on the offer for that jitter paper by Benjamin & Gannon of Dolby Labs. Then you could chase something else.

As posted in another thread, this article totally focuses on audible distortion caused by jitter, nothing else. No other effects on audio quality was researched on both theoretically and practically.
post #33 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Well, your dreaming process is in full gear, it appears. Time to get a reality check?

And how is he supposed to do that? You mean he needs to rely on his eyes to tell him what he hears? That is what people seem to do and rely on. That is not trusting your ears but getting confused about reality.

Looks like the haters are in full effect and always the same three "people". You guys are comedy; trying to justify your denial. Given the choice between the three haters and actual engineers who understand the technology behind music, I'll take the latter every time as would any logical person.

Frankly, I can't wait for your theory as to how paint by numbers picasso is exactly like the real thing Your sad attempts to justify how cheap/broke you are are always entertaining, in small doses of course, otherwise you begin to sound like what you are, a broken, pathetic record.
post #34 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar81 View Post

Looks like the haters are in full effect and always the same three "people". You guys are comedy; trying to justify your denial. Given the choice between the three haters and actual engineers who understand the technology behind music, I'll take the latter every time as would any logical person.

Frankly, I can't wait for your theory as to how paint by numbers picasso is exactly like the real thing Your sad attempts to justify how cheap/broke you are are always entertaining, in small doses of course, otherwise you begin to sound like what you are, a broken, pathetic record.

I really don't know why these guys bother. If all CD based 44k-16bit technology sounds identical why do we even have this forum? Shouldn't we be telling the moderator to delete it? Maybe it should be a permanent sticky called "Don't bother buying anything more than a Sony Walkman".
post #35 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by classic77 View Post

I really don't know why these guys bother. If all CD based 44k-16bit technology sounds identical why do we even have this forum?

I have always wondered that myself. It is a really pointless forum, discussing something that makes absolutely no difference at all. (I do have to reccommend a home unit, though. As I have pointed out many times before, the one limitation of a walkman is the tendency to stall and/or skip.)
post #36 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

So you got a freebie, so what.

You are Pulliamm.
post #37 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I have always wondered that myself. It is a really pointless forum, discussing something that makes absolutely no difference at all. (I do have to reccommend a home unit, though. As I have pointed out many times before, the one limitation of a walkman is the tendency to stall and/or skip.)

I hope everyone reads Pulliamm's ridiculous post.

How can you say a Walkman has a tendency to skip? By design, these units read ahead to avoid skips. How else would joggers have ever been able to wear them on their hips?

Come up with a new justification. All your past ones have been shot down.
post #38 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuthed View Post

I hope everyone reads Pulliamm's ridiculous post.

How can you say a Walkman has a tendency to skip? By design, these units read ahead to avoid skips. How else would joggers have ever been able to wear them on their hips?

Come up with a new justification. All your past ones have been shot down.

Yeah I never heard mine skip in it's four year life. I don't know of any home players with 40 second shock resistance.
post #39 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuthed View Post

I hope everyone reads Pulliamm's ridiculous post.

How can you say a Walkman has a tendency to skip? By design, these units read ahead to avoid skips. How else would joggers have ever been able to wear them on their hips?

Come up with a new justification. All your past ones have been shot down.

I have had a walkman skip (recently, a new model) while sitting perfectly still on a shelf. The cause was a visible scratch. The same CD played perfectly in a cheap home DVD player.
post #40 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuthed View Post

You are Pulliamm.

No he isn't. You are wrong, you have always been wrong, get used to it.
post #41 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

No he isn't. You are wrong, you have always been wrong, get used to it.

You're clueless and pathetic, get used to it.
post #42 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

I've said it before and I say it again. After twenty plus years of engineering and alchemy, everyone has run out of options to make the overall digital reproduction process using 16 bit samples and 44.1 khz sampling work properly. It's a bit starved media that was introduced prematurely before the the state of the digital recording art allowed things to be done correctly.

Bob Katz and cohorts designed filter algorithms in the mid 1990s, which rendered ~20 khz (i.e. Redbook) and 40 khz sampling indistinguishable in blind tests. His view is that the 'benefit' of higher then Redbook sampling rates are down to filter implementation, not some need for capturing ultrasonic frequencies. So by that line of reasoning, CD sampling rates 'can' be 'good enough. As for 16 bit versus higher bit, the higher bits certainly come in handy when there's digital processing involved, to keep rounding artifacts from becoming audible, but for the final delivery format, to be played in a home environment, there's no evidence that 24bits of dynamic range are necessary.

That said, processing power and storage are so cheap nowadays that there's no particular reason to stick to Redbook (other than compatibility with legacy gear); guys like LAvry and Katz and J Johnston have opined that upping the standard to ~60kHz/24 effectively 'solves' any putative issue with Redbook.


Quote:


Rappers, rockers and popists are all perfectly happy with CD quality sound. I have found that orchestral recordings break it. This is tyranny of the majority because the new digital audio formats have failed in the mass marketplace.


How can you tell that CD quality sound 'breaks it'? Compared to what, and as determined how?

The major hits to accurate sound reproduction were, and remain, the electromechanical transduction stages (microphone and loudspeaker), and the acoustic playback space . The supposed flaws of 'CD quality' pale to insignificance. THose are what 'break' sound (assuming the mixing and mastering itself didn't radically alter the sound).


Quote:


The problem with digital quality anything is that no one complains about it anymore.

Yo need to step up to some 'audiophile' forums, where the complaining is endless...and made more amusing by the pining for the 'glories' of LP-quality sound.
post #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacob_coulter View Post

I'm probably showing my lack of understanding in regards to digital information, but could all the issues that people say effect CD sound such as, jitter, dither, timing errors, vibrations, etc. be resolved by a system that took information from a CD to a hard drive, then lossless playback coming directly from the hard drive?

timing errors = jitter. Audible mainly at high frequencies if at all (the threshold of audibility of jitter hasn't been conclusively established).

dither: in use now for a couple of decades in digital audio. Effectively 'solved' the problem of distortion near the noise floor. Applied in the studio (and ideally wherever bit reduction occurs).

vibrations: if they are bad enough to affect sound, they will cause AUDIBLE dropouts -- that is, a catastrophic error.


Of these putative 'problems', jitter induced by the playback chain could be effectively eliminated by reading the data off hard drive.
post #44 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post


My take on oversampling:

I don't believe that oversampling actually creates data that isn't there. It's not like oversampling can magically make source material sampled at 44.1 kHz identical to what it would be if it were originally sampled at 88.2 kHz.

It doesn't create data, and I'm sure Chu Gai doesn't believe that either. The main benefit of oversampling DACs is that they allow implementation digital anti-aliasing filters without the usual artifacts, by moving the filtering process well away from the audible band. The filtered signal can then be easily downsampled back to output format.
post #45 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Of these putative 'problems', jitter induced by the playback chain could be effectively eliminated by reading the data off hard drive.

Actually this might not solve too much, and certainly wouldn't eliminate the issue. The best solution IMO is to cache or store the bitstream as close to the DAC as possible and make the path it travels from that cache as short as possible. A hard drive could be used for this but it would be overkill unless you are making a music server, plus the bitsream would still have a bit of travelling to do from the HD to the DAC. Putting RAM or cache memory very close to the DAC (right beside it, or better yet, embedding some on the DAC itself, like L1 CPU cache but using First In First Out algorithms to move the bitstream through the memory). Meridian does this with RAM ATM, but it will likely move onto the DACs IMO at some point and eliminate jitter (timing issues) almost completely as the signal will be reclocked right in the DAC itself without having to travel along any paths etched on the PCB... Even if you bring it in from RAM or a HD, you still have to travel from those devices to the DAC itself along some pathway which will again introduce jitter.
post #46 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

As for 16 bit versus higher bit, the higher bits certainly come in handy when there's digital processing involved, to keep rounding artifacts from becoming audible, but for the final delivery format, to be played in a home environment, there's no evidence that 24bits of dynamic range are necessary.

Perhaps you will find this quote useful for future research and/or investigations:
Quote:
If the peak instantaneous sound levels and noise thresholds are regarded as determining dynamic range requirements, much greater ranges are required. Fiedler's study has shown that a dynamic range of up to 118 dB is necessary for subjectively noise-free reproduction of music (see Fig. 5-12). He considered the peak instantaneous sound level of various sources, as shown at the top of the figure, and the just-audible threshold for white noise added to the program source when the listener is in a normal listening situation, as shown at the bottom of the figure. He used musical performances of high peak levels in a quiet environment and a very simple recording setup. These results are summarized in Fig. 5-12. The signal-to-noise ratio offered by a 16-bit PCM (pulse code modulation) system is shown to be inadequate for all but the piano solo. Future developments will undoubtedly require greater dynamic range than that offered by 16-bit digital systems.
-- Master Handbook of Acoustics, Fourth Edition, F. Alton Everest, pg. 104

Quote:
However, in recent years the audio community has grown dissatisfied with the quantization noise and "graininess" of 16-bit digital audio. New 24-bit formats are on the rise, such as "Super Audio CD" and "Audio DVD." In addition, professional audio mastering engineers are now working on 24-bit resolution to avoid the audibility of digital artifacts resulting from lower-resolution processing.
-- Master Handbook of Acoustics, Fourth Edition, F. Alton Everest, pg. 103

Everest is a credible source IMO.
post #47 of 126
BTW, I e-mailed that larger quote to Gene DellaSala awhile ago when he posted an article on AVS stating that CDs are high fidelity media... I asked if what Mr. Everest and Mr. Fiedler said is true, and if not if he could explain how Mr. Everest or Mr. Fiedler is incorrect. I never received an answer, or even an acknowledgement of any sort. It makes me consider that everyone has an agenda, and that people claiming to bring truth to the masses sometimes fall prey to their own vanity in terms of pleasing their followers. I hope this isn't the case with Mr. DellaSala and that he just misplaced the e-mail. I really think that if the quotes above are true, which I think they likely are considering the sources, that people shouldn't go around calling CDs high fidelity, as clearly they are not.
post #48 of 126
I'm quite aware of both Fielder and Everest's work. Fielder's measurements and conclusions have been discussed elswhere:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2e57cdcbf4f88a

There are questions of how 'realistic' Fielder's 1982 measurements really are; there are questions about the dynamic range of existing taped sources (e.g. analog tape masters of pre-digital orchestral recordings; how many of them meet or exceed what's available to CD in terms of DR?); there are questions as to whether requirements for *recordings* (routinely done at >16bits for many years now) need to be met equally at the home playback end.

Apart from that, a proposed failure to achieve adequate dynamic range for a tutti orchestra going form piannissimo to fortissimo miked naturally in a preternaturally quiet hall, or for a close-miked percussion section, cannot possibly explain how CD could 'break' the sound of, say, a string quartet.

Let's keep some perspective: a properly dithered CDs offers ~96 dB of dynamic range, over the audible frequency range. That was simply unprecedented in the pre-CD age. Indeed, it was the classical recording and production world which most quickly and fervently embraced the new technology, in large part because of the promise of more natural dynamic range. Focusing on this range as somehow being a 'problem' seems more wishful thinking than not, on the part of those who have to find some reason for their nagging dissatisfaction with the format.

By the standard of what came before it, CD is ABSOLUTELY a high-fidelity medium!
post #49 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

I really think that if the quotes above are true, which I think they likely are considering the sources, that people shouldn't go around calling CDs high fidelity, as clearly they are not.

CDs are vastly higher fidelity than vinyl or cassette. The proof is in the listening. Open-reel tape could be better, but only if you can get a first-generation master.
post #50 of 126
A simple admission that the quoted material is correct works well enough for me. No need to try and change the topic with red herrings or diffuse it with straw men. People can debate what they think of the quoted research, but have they disproved it? There is nothing stated here so far that warrants any more of a response than has been given in the previous quotes.
post #51 of 126
Appeal to people ad hominem attacks aren't necessary either. You can argue the point or not argue the point (you seem to not want to argue the point...), but it is wise IMO to stay away from justifying your point of view as true with the below quoted fallacy:
Quote:


Focusing on this range as somehow being a 'problem' seems more wishful thinking than not, on the part of those who have to find some reason for their nagging dissatisfaction with the format
post #52 of 126
Mildly hilarious lack of introspection in that 'ad hominem' complaint, QC, given that you wrote:

Quote:


It makes me consider that everyone has an agenda, and that people claiming to bring truth to the masses sometimes fall prey to their own vanity in terms of pleasing their followers.

Anyway, I see an ignore file in your future where you can practice rhetorical ninja-moves all you like. The rest of us might want to discuss how big a 'problem' 96 dB of available dynamic range is, for a medium to be used in a home listening environment, often reproducing taped material with a dynamic range less than that, and whether all that's a likely suspect for dissatisfaction with CD. Or maybe not...some things are really just too obvious after all.
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Mildly hilarious lack of introspection in that 'ad hominem' complaint, QC, given that you wrote:



Anyway, I see an ignore file in your future where you can practice rhetorical ninja-moves all you like. The rest of us might want to discuss how big a 'problem' 96 dB of available dynamic range is, for a medium to be used in a home listening environment, often reproducing taped material with a dynamic range less than that, and whether all that's a likely suspect for dissatisfaction with CD. Or maybe not...some things are really just too obvious after all.

Actually, my statement had nothing to do with the argument, it was an admitted thought I had about no one in particular. I even give DellaSalla the benefit of the doubt in the next sentence. Your statement was directly pointed at the quote itself, yet you have failed to give any credible refutation of the quote, or any contradictory research. This again is a red herring argument though and not worth pursuing IMO.

Go ahead and ignore me, you have now gone from appeal to people ad hominem fallacy attacks to appeal to fear fallacy attacks. Suit yourself, it is better if you actually show some proof to prove your point and refute the quotes I listed rather than threatening to bury your head in the sand.

BTW, those aren't my quotes, and I would be curious to see any proof that proves something significant as I am interested in the topic... The links you supplied are insignificant. They don't even contain any relevant research to support the opposing point of view; they contain posts of people arguing but not disproving the same quote.
post #54 of 126
Jeez, can just one thread not be hijacked about opinions that have beaten to death!
post #55 of 126
a thread devoted CD players and their sound quality and why all CD players do or do not sound the same.... you honestly expect that not to produce some opinions that have not been 'beaten to death'?

If so, feel free to contribute some. So far, I've only been talking about and linking to posts that talk about, technical aspects of CD players, sound recording and reproduction. I don't claim any of it's novel.
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugh9269 View Post

Jeez, can just one thread not be hijacked about opinions that have beaten to death!


You mean there are opinions left that have not been beaten to death yet?
Or, you just don't want any disagreements in posts, just support?
post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I'm quite aware of both Fielder and Everest's work. Fielder's measurements and conclusions have been discussed elswhere:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2e57cdcbf4f88a

There are questions of how 'realistic' Fielder's 1982 measurements really are; there are questions about the dynamic range of existing taped sources (e.g. analog tape masters of pre-digital orchestral recordings; how many of them meet or exceed what's available to CD in terms of DR?); there are questions as to whether requirements for *recordings* (routinely done at >16bits for many years now) need to be met equally at the home playback end.

Apart from that, a proposed failure to achieve adequate dynamic range for a tutti orchestra going form piannissimo to fortissimo miked naturally in a preternaturally quiet hall, or for a close-miked percussion section, cannot possibly explain how CD could 'break' the sound of, say, a string quartet.

Let's keep some perspective: a properly dithered CDs offers ~96 dB of dynamic range, over the audible frequency range. That was simply unprecedented in the pre-CD age. Indeed, it was the classical recording and production world which most quickly and fervently embraced the new technology, in large part because of the promise of more natural dynamic range. Focusing on this range as somehow being a 'problem' seems more wishful thinking than not, on the part of those who have to find some reason for their nagging dissatisfaction with the format.

By the standard of what came before it, CD is ABSOLUTELY a high-fidelity medium!


Just an interesting segment from the second link:

Fielder's paper's paragraph entitled "Dynamic Range Requirement"
mentions a requirement for 90 dB dynamic range for live music, not
close-miced, and with an audience present.
post #58 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post

BTW, I e-mailed that larger quote to Gene DellaSala awhile ago when he posted an article on AVS stating that CDs are high fidelity media... I asked if what Mr. Everest and Mr. Fiedler said is true, and if not if he could explain how Mr. Everest or Mr. Fiedler is incorrect. I never received an answer, or even an acknowledgement of any sort. It makes me consider that everyone has an agenda, and that people claiming to bring truth to the masses sometimes fall prey to their own vanity in terms of pleasing their followers. I hope this isn't the case with Mr. DellaSala and that he just misplaced the e-mail. I really think that if the quotes above are true, which I think they likely are considering the sources, that people shouldn't go around calling CDs high fidelity, as clearly they are not.


Maybe you should purchase the JAES paper by Fiedler so you don't get distortions or can understand the whole issue, even if Everest published a book. Also, here is an interesting quote from a much earlier discussion of this paper, linked below:

Fielder's paper's paragraph entitled "Dynamic Range Requirement"
mentions a requirement for 90 dB dynamic range for live music, not
close-miced, and with an audience present.


don't confuse research data and what is needed in homes. Close micing is not needed as that is not a representation what an audience hears 20ft, 40ft or 60ft from an orchestra. Nor does it mention room noise floors, just theoretical noise floors.
post #59 of 126
So I'm the only one who hears a raspy edge on digital audio? I can even hear it over the FM radio. I hear it on my car system. But I don't hear that noise when I listen to my records. If it's really not there and I'll just agree with the developing consensus that CD technology is just fine for 'Home playback'.

Or maybe other's do hear it and aren't as hypersensitive as I am.

I wish I, or my 'shrink' could fix the problem.

--- CHAS
post #60 of 126
CharlesJ, I read that thread on the bottom link (as well as the top one), and it didn't end up refuting the paper. If you have some credible sources which you can use to disprove the quotes, or the research they refer to, that I posted, I'm eager to read them. I don't feel like rehashing arguments already handled and dealt with in that link already, which basically ended up going absolutely nowhere and failed to prove the quotes are incorrect. I am interested in any credible proof that is available to contradict it, not conjecture. Failing to provide valid proof (actual valid research proving it incorrect) probably won't get another response from me on this topic, as I'm not interested in arguing as much as learning...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD DAC Technology