96Khz vs 192Khz

[MidiMagic]

Some of these arguments remind me of some of the political arguments I hear on TV.

 

[Owen Smith]

The subtle sounds got lost in the pixel dust of digitization because they were low enough to change a bit only now and then.

There is no such thing as "pixel dust of digitzation", making terms up does not make them exist.

And for your observation to be true CD would have to have a similar or lower dynamic range to LP when CD actually has a vastly greater dynamic range. Any really quiet sound on LP will be easily captured on CD without clipping the loudest parts of the LP.

 

[myhikingboots]

Wow I'm glad I finally found an audio/music group that understands basic science, and doesn't have to have the vinyl vs. digital debate every single day! And so far no discussion about cables. What a relief. What I've learned, a few vinyl distractions aside, 96Khz is good enough for me. What I already knew, 16bit 44Khz can sound damn fine too.

 

[admsh]

Is this a good time to ask if you think SACD is better than DVDA?

 

[myhikingboots]

Is this a good time to ask if you think SACD is better than DVDA?

Ha! I have been buying CD's for as long as the format has been around but I've only recently, over the last few years bought my first multi-layer SACD. I bought the Brother's in Arms for the 5.1 layer, lol! For higher bit rate than CD I mostly stream, and I do have some Blu-rays from some of the new deluxe reissues going around that have high sample rates.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Is this a good time to ask if you think SACD is better than DVDA?

No, let me get more popcorn first.

 

[Sal1950]

But if you care to, you can digitize the output of your turntable preamp when you play an LP, and the 'magic' will be there when you play back the digital file.

Yep, along with all of vinyl's other nasty sounding failings,

 

[Sal1950]

Is this a good time to ask if you think SACD is better than DVDA?

Along with CD and BD they are all capable of delivering a perfect reproduction of what gets fed into the burner
The exact and true provenance from the original tape or file is next to impossible to determine.
The rest is so full of "what if and buts" that the debate is a waste of time.

 

[ssully]

The sounds I am missing are subtle sounds from a live audience. In the records I have, I hear people talking in the background (unintelligible speech) and other crowd noises. They are not there on the CD of the same live album.

One expects the CD to be a different mastering. Any number of differences could exist that are simply choices, not some inherent 'pixel dust of digitization'. This is why I proposed digitizing your LP -- to demonstrate this to you.

I did digitize the recording.. I can record to CDs from analog or copy to computer files and then put them on CDs.
I recorded a track from one album to CDs. Whether the sounds are there depends on the level I recorded the music at.
If I approached clipping to record the CD from analog, then I heard all of the subtle sounds..

I'm not sure I understand you.

You ran a TT *preamp* (aka 'phono stage') output to an ADC, as I suggested? And when you did, the 'subtle sounds' on the LP disappeared unless you recorded the signal 'near clipping'?*

Or do you mean something else?

(*recording peaks near 0dB is not a bad thing to do , btw, as long as you are careful to not actually clip**)
(**which means you are utilizing nearly all the available dynamic range of the digital format ...so for any low level signal to 'disappear' from the LP when doing this , makes no sense, unless the ADC method was extremely faulty. The noise floor of an LP is already so far above that of any proper digital recording and playback technology that a competent ADC will faithfully capture everything from the LP's 'silence' to its loudest moment)

Can you name the artist/album in question?

 

[ssully]

Is this a good time to ask if you think SACD is better than DVDA?

No. That would be trolling.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

No. That would be trolling.

So, you don't think SACD is better than DVDA, or you don't want to bring the topic up because it's meaningless?

 

[Owen Smith]

So, you don't think SACD is better than DVDA, or you don't want to bring the topic up because it's meaningless?

I've seen SACD described as being equivalent to about 20 bit 60KHz sample rate. If true then like 24/96 that puts it well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. However the issues are different, things like using 96KHz sample rate to push ADC/DAC filter slopes well away from human hearing ranges work differently in the 1 bit world of SACD. And then there's SACD's dirty secret, all the ultrasonic noise it creates in order to push all the 1 bit sampling noise out of the range of human hearing.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

And then there's SACD's dirty secret, all the ultrasonic noise it creates in order to push all the 1 bit sampling noise out of the range of human hearing.

Dirty secret? But my dog loves listening to the pure raw unfiltered ultrasonic noise generated by my faulty SACD player!
I don't have a dog nor a faulty player.

 

[Sal1950]

And then there's SACD's dirty secret, all the ultrasonic noise it creates in order to push all the 1 bit sampling noise out of the range of human hearing.

OH NO, you weren't supposed to tell!

 

[Owen Smith]

Dirty secret? But my dog loves listening to the pure raw unfiltered ultrasonic noise generated by my faulty SACD player!

Your SACD player will generate ultrasonic noise in its output even if it isn't faulty. Whether your amp and speakers can reproduce it is a different matter.

 

[kfbkfb]

I hate to do this without a link/document, however, IIRC, and article in Sound & Vision mag by David Ranada pointed out a deficiency in the DSD digital system used in the SACD system. All I remember is an article about a problem with DSD, I don't recall specifics, if anyone can cite this info in a link, that would be a big help (S&V isn't in worldradiohistory.com yet).

I may go thru my copies of S&V to find this, it could be useful in the QQ library.

(edit) Found this:
https://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/attachment.pdf(cites S&V 2001-10, will check soon)


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

I recorded a track from one album to CDs. Whether the sounds are there depends on the level I recorded the music at. If I approached clipping to record the CD from analog, then I heard all of the subtle sounds.. If I recorded a CD from analog at a lower level (to prevent clipping) and then boosted the level in my studio software when making a mastering file to make a CD, the subtle sounds were gone. I heard no differences in the music.

That actually makes perfect sense. When you record at a higher level you are using more bits to describe the signal. If you use a 24 bit soundcard and record at 32 bit(float) that effect should be minimal or non-existent. Recording with 16 bits or less all bets are off, and normalising the signal after recording won't add any lost detail. I read somewhere that all you need for vinyl was 12 bit audio, a load of rubbish IMHO! Bit depth is more important than sample frequency.

 

[ssully]

So, you don't think SACD is better than DVDA, or you don't want to bring the topic up because it's meaningless?

Yes

 

[ssully]

Dirty secret? But my dog loves listening to the pure raw unfiltered ultrasonic noise generated by my faulty SACD player!
I don't have a dog nor a faulty player.

The output filter in your SACD player is low passed at either 50 or 100 kHz. Either way it includes ultrasonic noise.

 

[ssully]

That actually makes perfect sense. When you record at a higher level you are using more bits to describe the signal.

To completely lose the quietest signal *of an LP* he would have to set his recording level very erroneously low.

If you use a 24 bit soundcard and record at 32 bit(float) that effect should be minimal or non-existent. Recording with 16 bits or less all bets are off, and normalising the signal after recording won't add any lost detail.

16 bits is entirely adequate for the purpose of capturing the entire dynamic range of an LP.