Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:15:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail,com > wrote:

>> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
>> limit of resolution.
>
>You're talking complete nonsense. Clearly you don't understand the coding
>method.

Clearly he *does*. For a fixed-pitch font:
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

-from Ryan McGuire, April 1984

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
>> marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they
>> made an audible difference.
>
>
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the
> 1-bit limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality audio,
> you need at least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16
> bits can handle only up to 96 dB without clipping. 24-bits can handle
> a stunning 144 dB without distortion.
>
> No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big
> earache from all those nasty flat tops.

And you try to tell us you are really not a troll, just aspergers ?

geoff

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite,com > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:


> > They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
> > marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
> > audible difference.


> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> limit of resolution.

You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about here.



--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.


"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:g0e0rq$79o$3@reader2.panix,com ...
> Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite,com > wrote:
> > SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> > limit of resolution.
>
> You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about here.

We already established that a LONG time ago.

MrT.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:g0e0rq$79o$3@reader2.panix,com
> Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite,com > wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both
>>> flopped in the marketplace, and failed scientific tests
>>> designed to see if they made an audible difference.
>
>
>> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them --
>> due to the 1-bit limit of resolution.
>
> You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking
> about here.

Obviously.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.



"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> No:
>
> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>
> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>
> Yes:
>
> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
> human hearing range?

Well, when younger I could 'detect' albeit not hear in the conventional
sense up to 23kHz so certainly 44.1kHz isn't an adequately high enough
sampling rate for that.

Early digital audio suffered from crazy phase shifts associated with the
'brick wall' anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters too which some claimed were
audibly defective.

For my money I'd have made CD at least 50KHz and 18 bit.

Graham

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

> "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
>
>> No:
>>
>> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>>
>> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> http :// www .allexperts,com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>>
>> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
>> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
>> human hearing range?
>
> Well, when younger I could 'detect' albeit not hear in the conventional
> sense up to 23kHz so certainly 44.1kHz isn't an adequately high enough
> sampling rate for that.
>
> Early digital audio suffered from crazy phase shifts associated with the
> 'brick wall' anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters too which some claimed
> were audibly defective.
>
> For my money I'd have made CD at least 50KHz and 18 bit.
>
> Graham

Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested.
They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz,
ALL of them could tell the difference!

I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD
and CD, however once I attended a session where SACD was played
and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality
copy. We played both and everybody could tell the difference.
( only I knew which was which )

Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one,
I am not joking.
As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think
it is interesting.
Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the
additional vinyl problems.

Edmund

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Apr 28, 8:39 am, Edmund <nom...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested.

Who? When? How? Can you site a particular reference,
or is this just memory of an anecdotal tale?

> They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz,
> ALL of them could tell the difference!

There are ANY number of reasons why this could easily
be the case,, none of which involve ANY requirement of
bandwidth beyond 20 kHz. Arny mentioned the issue that
the filkter itself can easily have an audible effect.

Another case is where a standard laboratory function
generator is used as the stimulus. The frequency was
set to 7 kHz, and the output varied between a sine
wave and a square wave. It's almost certain that in
quick switch comparisons, MOST people will reliably
hear a difference. But the reason has NOTHING to do
with bandwidth.

Most function generators have outputs calibrated such
that the peak voltage of the waveforms is the same. That
means that if you set the square wave output to 1 volt P-P,
the sine wave output will also be 1 volt P-P. Unfortunately,
the 7 kHz component of the square wave is not 1volt P-P,
but some 1.3 or so dB lower. The result is that the listeners
end up hearing the difference betweem the different amplitude
of the 7 kHz sine wave in both, and NOT the presence or
absence of the 21 kHz, 35 kHz and so on components in
the square wave.

In other words, we have two examples of tests which have
a fundamental flaw in the methodology, and do NOT,
as you might think, illustrate the significance of ultrasonic
bandwidth.

Unitl you can site a test which accounts for these
and other issues, including small in-band amplitude
differences and more, the results are suspect, at best.

> I myself have not yet done much listening tests
> between the SACD and CD, however once I attended
> a session where SACD was played
> and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality
> copy. We played both and everybody could tell the difference.
> ( only I knew which was which )

And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer
and the SACD layer were, to begin with, exactky
the same save for the bandwidth? For example, it
is not infrequently the case where the CD layer and
SACD layers can be made with two different sets of
masters.

> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
> no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the
> additional vinyl problems.

That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl
is less than that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in
medium. And that's even more curious in light of the
fact that most recordings have significant bandwidth
limitations before they even hit the final stage.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:22:57 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk.org wrote:

> On Apr 28, 8:39 am, Edmund <nom...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Long time ago, not
>> with young people but older where tested.
>
> Who? When? How? Can you site a particular reference, or is this just
> memory of an anecdotal tale?

It is something I read 20 or even 30 years ago, don't ask
me for details :-)
>
>> They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz. So they
>> played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL of them
>> could tell the difference!
>
> There are ANY number of reasons why this could easily be the case,, none
> of which involve ANY requirement of bandwidth beyond 20 kHz. Arny
> mentioned the issue that the filkter itself can easily have an audible
> effect.
>
> Another case is where a standard laboratory function generator is used
> as the stimulus. The frequency was set to 7 kHz, and the output varied
> between a sine wave and a square wave. It's almost certain that in quick
> switch comparisons, MOST people will reliably hear a difference. But the
> reason has NOTHING to do with bandwidth.
>
> Most function generators have outputs calibrated such that the peak
> voltage of the waveforms is the same. That means that if you set the
> square wave output to 1 volt P-P, the sine wave output will also be 1
> volt P-P. Unfortunately, the 7 kHz component of the square wave is not
> 1volt P-P, but some 1.3 or so dB lower. The result is that the listeners
> end up hearing the difference betweem the different amplitude of the 7
> kHz sine wave in both, and NOT the presence or absence of the 21 kHz, 35
> kHz and so on components in the square wave.
>
> In other words, we have two examples of tests which have a fundamental
> flaw in the methodology, and do NOT, as you might think, illustrate the
> significance of ultrasonic bandwidth.

One detail I remember was the individual testing was done by
sine waves, which showed that non of the members heard anything
(at given level ) over 14000 Hz, most of them did a lot worse.
The filter test was done while playing music.

>
> Unitl you can site a test which accounts for these and other issues,
> including small in-band amplitude differences and more, the results are
> suspect, at best.

>
>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>> CD, however once I attended a session where SACD was played
>> and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD. I clued a new CD sticker
>> on both the SACD and the CD quality copy. We played both and everybody
>> could tell the difference. ( only I knew which was which )
>
> And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer and the SACD layer
> were, to begin with, exactky the same save for the bandwidth? For
> example, it is not infrequently the case where the CD layer and SACD
> layers can be made with two different sets of masters.

No I don't know about that, I assume they used the very same,
why would they use or even make different masters?
>
>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt the
>> vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>> problems.
>
> That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
> since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl is less than
> that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in medium. And that's even more
> curious in light of the fact that most recordings have significant
> bandwidth limitations before they even hit the final stage.

If that is a fact and there are no exceptions
I wonder what kind of effects are at work then.

Edmund

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Apr 28, 12:02 pm, Edmund <nom...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where
>>> tested. They where tested and all where complete
>>> deaf over 14000 Hz. So they played music and
>>> switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz. ALL of
>>> them could tell the difference!
>> Who? When? How? Can you site a particular reference,
>> or is this just memory of an anecdotal tale?
>
> It is something I read 20 or even 30 years ago, don't ask
> me for details :-)

But you stated with such certainty, bordering on
authority. Now, it seems, you don't rmember any
details, you can't even say who did the study. That
might lead on to suspect that it might be nothing
more than third-hand urban legend.

I was active on the field 20-30 years ago and such
a study with such defintiive, nearly earth-shaking
results would have been VERY hard to miss. It certainly
is not to be found in any of the professional literature.

Does it even exist?

>> In other words, we have two examples of tests
>> which have a fundamental flaw in the methodology,
>> and do NOT, as you might think, illustrate the
>> significance of ultrasonic bandwidth.
>
> One detail I remember was the individual testing was done by
> sine waves, which showed that non of the members heard anything
> (at given level ) over 14000 Hz, most of them did a lot worse.
> The filter test was done while playing music.

You seem to have missed the point: we have before us
two classic and oft-used examples of tests that are cited
as "proving" that information above the ultrasonic cutoff
can be detected by the human auditory system. Both
of these methods are flawed and prove nothing.

The method you cited, switching a 16 kHz low-pass filter
in and out, is significantly flawed. 20-30 years ago, it
was almost certainly a purely analog filter. At 16 kHz,
it's already 3 dB down. Assume a maximally-flat 2nd-order
low pass filter. Here is its response:

2000 -0.03
2500 -0.05
3150 -0.09
4000 -0.14
5000 -0.23
6300 -0.38
8000 -0.64
10000 -1.06
12500 -1.76
15900 -3.02
20000 -4.84

Now, yes, the filter is down -3dB at 16kHz, as per
spec, but it's also down 1.76 dB at 12 kHz, which
the subjects COULD hear, according to your "test",
it's down 1 dB at 10 kHz, and it has arguably audible
effects down to 5 kHz.

How does such a test, which has real audible effects
BELOW 16 kHz, prove that information ABOVE 16 kHz
is audible? (hint: it can't: the test is fatally flawed from
the get-go).

And this is based on a mathematically filter: a physical
respresentation is not likely to be as good.

How does one now that the filter itself is not adding
other audible artifacts that the listeners were cueing
on (answer: you don't: you have no details of the test).

All in all, I think this 20- ro 30-year old test can be
simply dicounted as being of no value in proving
anything at all.

>> And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer
>> and the SACD layer were, to begin with, exactly
>> the same save for the bandwidth? For example,
>> it is not infrequently the case where the CD layer
>> and SACD layers can be made with two different
>> sets of masters.
>
> No I don't know about that, I assume they used the very same,
> why would they use or even make different masters?

Why would you assume they were the saem?

There are PLENTY of reasons, valid and not so valid, why
the would be different:

* Part of the function of mastering is to "optimize" (in
the best case) or otherwise "adjust" the recording
to fit the particular medium. That would result in
different end ,asters for CD, SACD, DSD, LP, and
so on. They would most definitely NOT be the same
because the media are different.

* Some producers have a stake in the outcome. If
they want to make sure their SACD sales are up,
they'll make the SACD quirte audibly different
than the CD. You think these people are in business
for YOUR benefit?

* Two entirely diffeent people may have been responsible
for mastering the two media, with different results.

* The SACD came first, and the CD layer was an
afterthought, so little effort was made to make
the CD layer was done right.

* If the SACD and CD layer REALLY DID sound the
same, what reason would their be for people to
replace their CD collection with SACDs?

That and 20 other reasons.

>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD
>>> with good vinyl, no doubt the vinyl sounded
>>> better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
> >> problems.
>
>> That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
>> since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl
>> is less than that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in
>> medium. And that's even more curious in light of the
>> fact that most recordings have significant
>> bandwidth limitations before they even hit the final stage.
>
> If that is a fact and there are no exceptions
> I wonder what kind of effects are at work then.

Again, PLENTY of reasons.

The mastering process to produse an LP stamper results
in quite different audio than the mastering process to
produce the corresponding CD stamper. FOr example, to
prevent excessive groove excursion and thus reduce
the amount of available real estate on the LP, low frequencies
are compressed and, often, partially summed to mono.

Because the cutting and playback stylus must occupy
some non-infinitesimal volume, linnear superposition
does not hold, with a result of higher distortion in LPs.

The dynamic range of LPs is compressed, noise floor is
higher.

The original mastering of the LP is unsuitable for CD,
and vice versa, therefore, the mastering process for a cd
is VASTLY different than for the lp.

All of these and MANY other reasons make it a certainty
that NO LP is going to sound like the CD. That's a
matter of physical fact.

Which sounds better is a matter of personal preference
and judgement.

If someone were to come to you and want you to tell
if two media sound the same, you can save a LOT of time
by simply saying "they don't."

Which sounds better? To me, the one I like.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote:
>
> I was active on the field 20-30 years ago and such
> a study with such defintiive, nearly earth-shaking
> results would have been VERY hard to miss. It certainly
> is not to be found in any of the professional literature.
>
> Does it even exist?

The closest thing I can recall to this was a mention in
John H. Potts' final "Editor's Report" for Audio Engineering
magazine in March 1949. Potts was reporting a conversation
that he had with W. S. Barrell, then technical director of EMI.
He promised a future article on the subject - none seems to
have appeared.

I suspect the study had the flaws you discussed.

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb,net

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:07:25 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:4815c591$0$16811$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl
>
>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested. They where
>> tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
>
> It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over
> 14 KHz. Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency
> losses, they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just
> attenuated.
>
>> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL
>> of them could tell the difference!
>
> I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect -
> just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies. There
> are a number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are given,
> and it turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz, due to the
> gentle slope.

Loss or phase shifts/problems?
>
>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>> CD,
>
> There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional
> organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if
> you take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample
> them to 44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.

I have seen such a report, strange,.... I like to hear or not hear it
myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
>
> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due
> to different mastering.

I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use a different
mastering if they already had one for the SACD?
>
>> however once I attended a session where SACD was played and I made a
>> copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
>> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality copy. We
>> played both and everybody could tell the difference. ( only I knew
>> which was which )
>
> Single-blind evaluations have well-known failings, going back to "Clever
> Hans the talknig horse" circa 1800.
>
>> Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one, I am not
>> joking.
>
> You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.

I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.

>
>> As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think it is
>> interesting.
>
> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
> like, check the AES web site.

I will, do you have a specific URL with this article?
BTW check it yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9
I have seen the impulse of a SACD being the best available of
all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?

>
>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt the
>> vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>> problems.
>
> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
> "sound better"?

I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall sound
was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
better all agreed that that was not true.

Edmund

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:15:47 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:4815dd90$0$1058$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:07:25 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>>> news:4815c591$0$16811$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl
>>>
>>>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested. They
>>>> where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
>>>
>>> It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over
>>> 14 KHz. Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency
>>> losses, they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just
>>> attenuated.
>>>
>>>> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL
>>>> of them could tell the difference!
>>>
>>> I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect
>>> - just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies.
>>> There are a number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are
>>> given, and it turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz,
>>> due to the gentle slope.
>>
>> Loss or phase shifts/problems?
>
> Phase shift applied equally to both channels usually has to be
> exceedingly severe to be audible with most musical sources.
>
>>>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>>>> CD,
>>>
>>> There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional
>>> organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if
>>> you take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample
>>> them to 44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.
>
>> I have seen such a report, strange,.... I like to hear or not hear it
>> myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
>
> Their procedure was pretty good, and might be helpful to your own
> personal investigations.
>
>>> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different
>>> due to different mastering.
>
>> I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use a different
>> mastering if they already had one for the SACD?
>
> For one reason, because the SACD is a reissue, and the comparison is to
> a CD that was mastered some time ago.

I made a copy of the CD layer from an SACD, I read that
studio's had a new format to use the SACD master for
producing CD's too.
I could be very wrong but still I assumed that was the case.

>

>>>
>>> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
>>> like, check the AES web site.
>
>> I will, do you have a specific URL with this article? BTW check it
>> yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
>> with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9 I have seen the
>> impulse of a SACD being the best available of
>> all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?
>
> The old fashioned way - with more bandwidth.

Yes the SACD has more bandwith but still you seem to have some
problems with the SACD format, don't you?
>
> However, impulse response is a measurement, I thought you were
> interested in listening tests?

No I am not into voodoo I am not talking in extremes,
I both do listen and like to know how stuff works.
Both SACD and DVDA seems a pretty steep step forward
to me and very interesting if in serious listening tests
nobody seems to be able to hear the difference.
>
>>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt
>>>> the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>>>> problems.
>
>>> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
>>> "sound better"?
>
>> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall
>> sound was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
>
> How do you know that what you perceived as better detail wasn't
> distortion due to the LP?

That is the fun of listening, I don't know that but we all
agreed that the vinyl sounded better.
It is hard for me to believe that we where all addicted to
some kind of distortion, but who knows?
>
>> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
>> better all agreed that that was not true.
>
> The canonical anecdote starts out with "Even my wife in the kitchen said
> that it sounded better and she obviously didn't know what she was
> listening to".

So that could be true too.

Edmund

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:14:26 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

> "Edmund" <nomail@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:4815dd90$0$1058$bf4948fe@news.tele2.nl...
>> > However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different
>> > due to different mastering.
>>
>> I assumed the mastering was the same.
>
> There's your first mistake!
>
>>Why would they use a different mastering if they already had one for the
> SACD?
>
> To fool people like you into thinking a more expensive format actually
> sounds different.
>
>
>> > You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
>>
>> I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.
>
> So why waste your time on deceptive testing?

Because I am curious and like to know if I and others would
hear any difference. I had no option to make it a perfect test.
>
>> > Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion
>> > still "sound better"?
>>
>> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall
>> sound was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
>
> A common misbelief, easily proven wrong by inserting a good 16/44 AD/DA
> into the vinyl playback chain. Make sure the gain is unity and see if
> anybody can pick when it's in or out. I have been doing that for ten
> years and nobody has reliably picked which is which.

I find that very interesting can you tell us how you exactly do that
what equipment and all?

Edmund

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> writes:

> "Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:m3fxt44rfh.fsf@ieee.org...
>> > The best digital audio hardware is slightly less than 120dB dynamic
>> > range.
>>
>> That may be true on the ADC side, but I'm not sure it is on the DAC
>> side.
>
> So for solely computer generated music you may get an extra few dB's. So
> what? Still less than 144dB that Radium wants.

The statement in your original post above is reasonably correct. I was
still seeing the intimation of "impossible" from your other post to
Radium on the topic.

However, it may be POSSIBLE to reach 144 dB DR in a DAC. For example,
Figure 9 from my presentation on delta-sigma D/A conversion

http :// www .digitalsignallabs,com /presentation.pdf

is based on an equation I wrote in a Matlab function (m-file). Tonight I
wrote another Matlab function which rearranged that equation to return M
(oversampling ratio) given SNR and modulator order. Using an SNR of 144
dB and a modulator order of 2 (quite conservative) I obtained a required
oversampling ratio of 1266.

At 44.1 kHz, that means we would have a 1-bit stream at 55.8 Mb/s. This
is completely reasonable given the current state of today's hardware
using, say, a Xilinx Virtex FPGA or somesuch. The MIPS required for the
interpolating filter would be well within reason as well using polyphase
filtering techniques, and a 2nd order modulator isn't too expensive in
terms of MIPS.

The bigger challenge would most likely be the analog design. But if
money were no object, then you could resort to extremes such as
cryogenically cooling the front-end amp.

This is certainly crazy for anything close to practical, but I just
wouldn't rule out "possible."

> I'm still puzzled how one is going to listen to 144dB dynamic range even IF
> it was possible. Any suggestions Randy?

I'm not sure what the problem would be since you can always turn the
"volume" down and let the soft parts drop into the ambient noise floor
(either thermal or acoustical). You might even get better results than
you think given the ear's ability to act like an adaptive matched filter
(e.g., you can hear a sine wave well below the noise floor).

I never intended to challenge the impracticality of it, only the
possibility. I don't believe it's IMPOSSIBLE to achieve this level of
dynamic range.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http :// www .digitalsignallabs,com