DIgital formats matter

If your claiming you do t understand then go away it's way above your thought process.
It's about the sound of various bit depth and rate apparently above the few brain cells you poseess.
What is your major malfunction sir.
Lastly what does what format in video have to do with its audio component it seems your just making it confusing on purpose a shame for anyone wanting to learn or understand.
 
Well, there are 2 things being discussed here. One is why and how the CD became the default standard for delivery of digital music to customers, the other is something confusing about sound quality.

I don’t listen to any DSD beyond 64f, because I’ve found little or no music I want to buy recorded at higher DSD resolutions and also commercially available. What little I’ve heard has been free samples of uninteresting (to me) music, which does seem to sound a little better than 64f versions of the same. I prefer 24/192 or 24/176.4 for music originally recorded that way. I haven’t noticed any sonic advantage to resolutions above 24/96 for music originally recorded to analog tape.
 
I have done this quite a few times on Qobuz. I will play a 16/44.1 then play the 24/96. The 24/96 always has less glare and is just generally more pleasant to listen too. I don't know I hear more base or extended highs. I do find cymbals on high rez will have better leading edge and more clear definition. You can hear the cymbal as an individual instrument instead of splashy noise. High rez is better. Unfortunately I have more drop outs on Qobuz with high rez.

I have tried the same with tidal and 2 unfolds. My HQ player will show I am going from a CD 16/44.1 to 24/40 something, but I don't get as much perceived improvement.

I say improvement with Qobuz high resolution as I find the same album, 16/44.1 vs 24/96, the higher resolution is better. It's not a preference thing. One is better than the other. See above.

P.S. it is subtle. But subtle counts. It's the multitude of subtle improvements that add up to really nice digital.

P.S.S. I have posted in the past I am in a toss up with my digital and vinyl. After upgrading my server this is not the case any more. I sent my vinyl preamp to a friend to demo and just gave up on vinyl for now. A pro dealer who has been to my house and assisted in setting up my gear believes I need about $11K in vinyl equipment to outpace my digital now. Outpace meaning, same level of quiet, same or better dynamics, better harmonic integrity or instrumental purity. What I mean by that is vocals, violin, brass sound more like a real instrument on one format than the other. I could get pretty much the same for some amount less, but why bother. I have 30 of so album I really like. I have 1800+ CD I ripped and all of Tidals/Qobuz to play.
 
Ty king Rex I am trying hard to get views.
I play music I never would play if not for its better sound. Dsd above 64 is also better for me dsd128 should be standard
Tomorrow I'll
Be back home and upload some stuff for some to try and comment on. Maybe for some music may be better to understand lol Just for the ones whom are annoyed I'm not going away simply cause your annoyed. If your better prove it amongst all. I'll be happy to say ty if I learn.
 
Alrainbow said:
So thankful for your detailed reply. Now consider this did anyone listen or just use math ?
In our realm both must be done and even if math says no one must consider why if hearing is better results. How many dacs , amps get made on perfection that sound bad.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. People did listen, but most digital engineers were not audiophiles. What they and the beta listeners from the general public probably heard was superior to their mediocre turntable set-ups. On the modest systems that we listened to, my friends and I also agreed that CD sounded better and clearer. Which is what the public in general thought, hence the success of CD.

And make no mistake: digital was promoted by recording engineers because they honestly thought it was better. For example, the engineers at Telarc were gushing over the unheard dynamics (on their 16 bit, 50 kHz Soundstream system). With a new format it is not always easy to hear the flaws right away because first you need to know which flaws to listen for. For example, the initial reaction to CD by Dick Olsher from Stereophile was enthusiastic, only later he cooled down.

Also, the math *is* right. Digital theory is just very hard to implement practically, and I am sure digital engineers underestimated the problem. But the theory is sound. Until a few years ago I resigned myself to certain limitations of the CD medium, but now I have become much more bullish. With recent advances in playback it has become obvious how much better CD is than most of us thought, and it now shows a good amount of the potential that was promised three and a half decades ago. The theory was right all along, but implementation was lagging behind, also because there is no safety buffer in the CD format. So-called high res has more of a margin for error built in, which is why it more easily can sound good.
 
I don't play music I don't like because it's sonically better. I actively seek music I like and play the high resolution files. Nancy asked I play the Beatles so I found a 24/96 file and played that. It was the reissue, but it was pretty good.
 
Al M. Great point on CD being better than my poor vinyl rig. I had no idea vinyl was good because I had no idea how to obtain good vinyl. My brother had a Duel TT and, maybe a $40 cartridge. And that was expensive gear to me. I spent some $ on a Msrantz cassette deck, but it was obvious a tape dupe was sonically inferior if done wrong. The only benefit a record had over radio was content control. CD defaulted to the same for me. Anyhow, at a young age, It was all about the music, not the playback gear.
 
Kingrex said:
I have done this quite a few times on Qobuz. I will play a 16/44.1 then play the 24/96. The 24/96 always has less glare and is just generally more pleasant to listen too. I don't know I hear more base or extended highs. I do find cymbals on high rez will have better leading edge and more clear definition. You can hear the cymbal as an individual instrument instead of splashy noise. High rez is better. Unfortunately I have more drop outs on Qobuz with high rez.
Click to expand...

If you have problems with splashy cymbals from the CD format, your playback is not optimal. I play physical CDs from a great transport (a server is harder to get right) via an expensive AES/EBU cable (MIT) into my DAC. Especially on jazz I have cymbals that often sound breathtaking, with great, meaty tone, and excellent leading edge and resolution. No splash, no glare, no 'whiteness'.
 
Kingrex said:
Al M. Great point on CD being better than my poor vinyl rig. I had no idea vinyl was good because I had no idea how to obtain good vinyl. My brother had a Duel TT and, maybe a $40 cartridge. And that was expensive gear to me. I spent some $ on a Msrantz cassette deck, but it was obvious a tape dupe was sonically inferior if done wrong. The only benefit a record had over radio was content control. CD defaulted to the same for me. Anyhow, at a young age, It was all about the music, not the playback gear.
Click to expand...

Yes, I also had no clue just how incredibly clear and highly resolved vinyl can sound until I heard it on the expensive turntable set-ups of my audiophile friends.

Personally I have no interest getting back into vinyl. A set-up that could rival my CD playback would be incredibly expensive, and there's just so much hassle involved. I do love the vinyl playback in my audiophile friends' systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top