Pages

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Re: [SurroundSound] Neil Young's Pono Player ....

@SS that's quite an interesting article I was responding on my mobile earlier (so missed the link) and I can remember it well. It goes to show that at the moment we cannot measure what can be heard.

I picked The Beatles as a really good example, because with this set of recordings upon their release I played them to my wife - (who as I've mentioned before is totally intolerant to my music.) and she could identify the 24 bit versions from an adjacent room. Her word for it, although incorrect, is "boomy"; less bits = more boom. 16 bits being boomy.



On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Lokkerman <phil.steeples@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not trying to get into a debate on this and I'm certainly not going to start listening for dither. My point is that to some people 16 bits does not always sound right and sounds compressed; this perhaps the closest to explaining the audible signature . I'm in this camp and have well nailed my colours to the mast on this one.

On Sep 29, 2013 3:21 PM, "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

Is the 16 bit version in fact more 'compressed'  than the 24bit? Is the mastering different?  If not, it's simply incorrect to refer to one as 'compressed', especially since that word itself has two meanings (DR compression and data compression) that audiophiles already confuse too often

You know, Lokkerman (since we're on a first name basis) it's funny how often you keep trying to pre-empt my replies.  It comes off passive aggressive a maybe a bit nervous.  Less funny is how you carelessly misrepresent what I write, almost like a propagandist would.  For example , I've never written 'it's not possible to hear 16 vs 24 bit'.  It's not impossible to do that.

But I pretty sure you don't 'know' that that's what you're hearing here-- 'belief' is the correct term to use in this case, whether you like it or not.  

Facts: The Beatles stick and CDs appear to have been mastered slightly differently, beyond just downcoversion.  The 24 bit one is a little bit louder, for example, and that's not the only difference. But these differences are tiny.  Dither noise -64 dB down on the CDs *could* be  audible ....if you crank it way up. In terms of dynamic range, they are the same.  No extra compression on the 16 bit one.  So what are you *really* hearing, Lokkerman?  

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=77630&view=findpost&p=679888

 

 

On 09/29/13 04:14, Lokkerman wrote:

This gets to the aural argument again. Revisit the Beatles USB. Listen to the vocals on the 16 versus the 24 bits. The 16 bit version sounds raspier, the 24 bits sounds sweeter and more natural. The implication especially to those that can immediately hear this difference and to that are also non-technical, is that it is compressed, even if it isn't. Audibly, to those that can hear this difference, the effect is not dis-similar. 
Steven - please do not give an elongated response as to why we cannot possibly hear this difference, just accept that some folks believe (know) they can and it's an alternate view to yours.


On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

Exactly, RW.

 

The OP wrote "For me uncompressed 24bits is a very nice improvement over compressed 16,".   That's a nonsequitur, a mis-comparison.  16bit audio isn't natively 'compressed'.  16bit CD audio natively offers 96dB of dynamic range, and >100dB if a few digital tricks are applied. That's more than enough for analog tape sources.  So if he meant, 24bits is a nice improvement over a CD mastering with compressed dynamic range, that has *nothing* to do with CD being 16 bit, and everything to do with a mastering choice.  A 24 bit version of that mastering wouldn't make a single 'bit' of difference.  What would make a difference is applying less compression during mastering (and mixing) of the CD.  That all by itself would give the same audible improvement over 'compressed 16'.

 

 

 

 

On 09/28/13 10:35, RW wrote:

I tend to agree with Steven with this one.  IMHO, the absolute sound quality of CD is plenty good enough if proper care and handling is taken during the mixing and mastering steps.  Take a listen to the Grateful Dead's "American Beauty" on HDCD and Creedence Clearwater's whole collection available on K2 and see what you think.  These are available from the usual source.

I have some Sony Super BitMapped, HDCDs, K2 and K2HD (all 44.1 kHz, 16/20 bit) CDs that sound absolutely fabulous, as good as anything I've heard with 96 kHz, 24 bit albums.  And it seems to me that the supreme care that was taken during the K2 and others' processes made all the difference in the world.

Check out this link for more info. on the K2 process, well worth the read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_High_Definition

-RW-

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

 

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No comments:

Post a Comment