96Hz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

[hifiashok]

variables would be much wider since even the destination would matter, since you say 'which would SOUND better'.

you have said 'keeping similar equipment and accuracy' at source. however, due to LP being LP and vice versa, what is the player/source, amp., speaker, room condition, etc., that is attempting reproducing the original to its ability?

keep in mind, analogue is contiguous. digital is recreated to as close to contigous as the sampling allows within limits of human ears (and sentiment ;-) ) discerning the difference.

sound, eventually is analogue.

however, there may come a time when the amount of detail one can cram into the LP format given the number of microphones, etc., there are capturing the musicians and the complexity of the music reaches a theoritical limit, at which point digital takes over due to its capablity having no bounds with newer tech. coming along the way (like moore's law).

just thoughts put out loud.

 

[swami]

just thoughts put out loud.

Loud and much ahead of my spectrum!

[I just am normal human (20Hz-20KHz); but then so are you! - no offense]

 

[IndianEars]

swami queried:

...here is my query - Consider a song recorded on LP, and BR and DXD and DSD in the studio (as in AAD, ADD, DDD etc. stuff). Now, if these are transferred to audio CD (of course 44.1KHz/16bit) with similar equipment and accuracy, which version of the song will sound better/fuller/closer to original artist the way he sang in studio?

Am I correct in saying that it should be "LP to CD" which wins this test?

swami, As you have correctly said :

If 44.1KHz (CD) is lesser than 96KHz is lesser than 352.8KHz is lesser than Blue Ray 3.0 (what Smedhavi has written above) just because of the sample rates, it tells me that analog media is most accurately close to the original. Oh yes! all of you know that, there is nothing new to it.

Yes, analog signals have an 'infinite' sample rate... they are by definition, continious signals, not a series of closely spaced or far apart digital dots (samples)

The LP resolution it self is limited theoritically by the cartridge's tracking capability, resolution etc and ultimately by the grain size of the material that the LP is pressed from.

DVD-A (or any other digital, high bit rate format ) to CD conversion can be done by simple mathematical computation, with little 'interpretation errors.'

However, LP to CD conversion for analog playback necessarily uses Extra components in the chain, viz the Analog playback system, consisting of not just the Turntable, but also the Cartridge and RIAA Equalisation pre-amp. These last 2 components ALWAYS have their own very distinctive signature (sound), making it impossible to tell the 'real' sound of the LP....

 

[smedhavi]

Hi,

I have an easy solution for everyone getting bogged down by the technicality of this discussion. Take one of your favorite albums in various formats and try to listen to it 2 or 3 times, back to back, on any one of the formats. If you can do that without forcing yourself too hard, the format works for you.

Here is my experience:

• MP3: After a few songs, I find something more important to be done rather than listening to music.
• CD: I start thinking of other things during the 2nd listening
• LP: I feel like flipping it over just one more time before winding up the session
• Tape: In an earlier era, many of us did listen to the same tape again and again in auto-reverse mode in the car, but I always longed for a bit more resolution in the higher frequencies. Otherwise, I well recorded tape is still quite satisfying on my Denon deck.

Please note that I did not perform the above exercise as a test, but experienced this as part of life.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[hifiashok]

i sincerely believe knowledge heightens the enjoyment.

for example, the first time i heard pt bhimsen joshi, i loved what i heard for his voice, depth, bass, timbre, control, etc. however, my enjoyment increased when i learnt more about rag darbari, its finer nuances, the subtle personal touches, variations, etc.

so, one could go with the simple 'did it sound good to me'. or one could learn more and appreciate even better with that addl. input/knowledge.

till i learnt abt. valves, i was happy with ss. till i heard es i was happy with electro dynamics. till i learnt what difference cable quality could make, i used simple two pair electric wire.

and so on.....

 

[murali_n]

Hi All,

In Communication Engg, Sampling theorem states that any signal to be reproduced faithfully without loss of detail, has to be sampled at twice the value of its highest frequency. So, for Audio 2 x 20Khz = 40 Khz would be sufficient. But during, audio conversion process like from Tape to Digital it is done at a Very high frequency eg 96 Khz so that during the process of Normalising or equalising the loss is less. Then the final master is downsampled to 40+ Khz, 24 Bit to be written to CD. Even here 16 Bit is enough, to retain the details of the original recording.

with regards,

Murali.N

 

[hifiashok]

Hi All,

In Communication Engg, Sampling theorem states that any signal to be reproduced faithfully without loss of detail, has to be sampled at twice the value of its highest frequency. So, for Audio 2 x 20Khz = 40 Khz would be sufficient. But during, audio conversion process like from Tape to Digital it is done at a Very high frequency eg 96 Khz so that during the process of Normalising or equalising the loss is less. Then the final master is downsampled to 40+ Khz, 24 Bit to be written to CD. Even here 16 Bit is enough, to retain the details of the original recording.

with regards,

Murali.N

A = B = C, Analogue = Digital (incl. even 16/44 RBCD)!!

now, that is something that will rustle the hornet's nest!!

 

[IndianEars]

The Consumer Electronics Show 2009 is on in Las Vegas, USA.

This is the annual Mela where new Consumer ( and Hi Fi Products ) are released.

Here is a tid-bit from the net :

Jeff Fritz - January 8, 2009

The first day of the 2009 CES made it clear just how much the computer has integrated its way into the audiophile mindset. USB DACs were everywhere today. Music servers were coming out of the woodwork. Products designed for wireless integration of various electronic components were seen around each corner. Computer-based systems were ubiquitous.

Its honestly hard to keep up with, but its also an exciting time if youre open to adopting new technologies that are designed for slick user interface and, in some cases, advancing audio performance. I cant imagine how much the digital landscape will change in the next five years. I have a feeling that some of the products well be writing about at the 2015 CES would be almost unfathomable right now.

Consider this: Presently we have the Reference Recordings HRx series of DVD-Data discs -- these are unique in that they hold 24-bit/176.4kHz digital masters and are playable only on a computer-based system. The sound is amazing. What if that level of resolution is the norm for computer playback in five years? Well all be several steps closer to the live performance than we ever were with Red Book CD. Will the 2009 CES be the one we look back on and say, "Thats when it really all started?" Maybe so.

 

[gobble]

Thanks.

Anyone who has seen/listened to these CDs? Would you like to agree/disagree with Smedhavi's view?

I bought one DECCA 24/96 CD last week ( Solti's Schubert symphony no.9) to test my CDP Marantz cd6002 as it uses the same 24/96 DAC from a high end 7001 SACD player.

To my surprise it played well. Then I found out why on reading the inner sleeve. The original recording is re-mastered in 24bit/96KHZ in studio and then noise-shaped i.e bit decimated/dithered back to 16bit/44.1khz. So its actually a regular CD.

Cheers

 

[hifiashok]

guess this is my cue to say 'conceded'.

now, starting another query since it leaves off just there above; why would a CDP want to use a DAC capable of 24/96 or 24/192 when as a CDP it only has to play RBCD or 16/44, other audio related capabilities of the DAC for RBCD notwithstanding!!?

 

[SuhasG]

I think follwing calculations might be of some help for this dicussion.

Case - 1: Standard RED BOOK format 16 Bits / 44.1 Khz

Sampling Freqency : 44100 Hz means there are 44100 Samples/Channel/Sec

Each Sample Bit length is : 16 bits.

For Stereo (2 channels) Bit length = 32 bits means 4 bytes/sample
Now to record for 1 sec we need 44100 samples , each one taking 4 bytes to store. Means we need 44100 x 4 = 176400 Bytes (176.4 KBytes)

CD has a capacity of 800 MB so we can record maximum :
800 MB / 176.4 KB = 4535.14 Sec or 75.58 Minutes.

Case - 2: A True 24/96 KHz recording stored on Standard RED BOOK CD

Sampling Freqency : 96000 Hz means there are 96000 Samples/Channel/Sec

Each Sample Bit length is : 24 bits.

For Stereo (2 channels) Bit length = 48 bits means 6 bytes/sample
Now to record for 1 sec we need 96000 samples , each one taking 6 bytes to store. Means we need 96000 x 6 = 576000 Bytes (576 KBytes)

CD has a capacity of 800 MB so we can record maximum :
800 MB / 576 KB = 1388. Sec or 23.14 Minutes.

It is clear from the calculations that a True 24/96 can not record more than 23 minutes on a standard 800 MB Red book CD blank.

Now if this original 24/96 recording is down scaled to 16 bits (but still keping 96K smaples / sec) then recording time will go up to 34 Minutes (from 23 Minutes) that's all.

So if that 24/96 is True (means without any downscaling to 16/44,1 format) then CD can have only 23 Minutes of program! So if a CD stores more than that and still claims to be 24/96 then by all means it is 'Recorded or Re-mastered in 24bit/96KHZ in studio but it then bit decimated/dithered back to 16bit/44.1khz. Unless they use a CD blank that can store more than 800 MB!

Please correct me if I missed anything in the calculation.

 

[gobble]

Looks right to me!

PS: Thanks for saving us the brain work. I will let me grey cells sleep a little longer

Cheers

 

[gobble]

guess this is my cue to say 'conceded'.

now, starting another query since it leaves off just there above; why would a CDP want to use a DAC capable of 24/96 or 24/192 when as a CDP it only has to play RBCD or 16/44, other audio related capabilities of the DAC for RBCD notwithstanding!!?

In the IAF they cannibalize parts from other planes to get a broken one in flying condition. In our situation - the Marantz CD6002 has "borrowed" the higher end improvements in circuitry on their Special edition players to produce a similar product at more budget prices but without the SACD tag.

cheers

 

[hifiashok]

In the IAF they cannibalize parts from other planes to get a broken one in flying condition. In our situation - the Marantz CD6002 has "borrowed" the higher end improvements in circuitry on their Special edition players to produce a similar product at more budget prices but without the SACD tag.

cheers

would a better example not be the economies of scale that accrue owing to the platform standardisation that most manufacturers work towards, specifically in the auto industry.

for example, the Swift and Desire (Maruti) have the same (similar to a large extent) platform, with the Desire only having the extra boot space.

so, bung in the BurrBrowns capable of the 24/96 or 24/192 into CDPs even if you need to play only RBCDs off the player, since economies of scale in buying larger volumes of the same chips for the SACD/DVDPs being manufactured gets them better nego capabilities.

 

[gobble]

Yeah good point. Only these are Cirrus not BB DACs.

cheers

 

[doors666]

Ok, so no one has mentioned this so far. What is the approximate cost of these CDs, is it higher than the usual. What kind of selection is available in time out for these CDs.

 

[smedhavi]

Re: 96KHz 24 Bit Remastered on CD - Decca

Forget the price, after so many months of discussion I have still not found any audio CD that has 96KHz/24 Bit on a red book CD.
Can someone please post a link now? We seem to be discussing a mirage here.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[IndianEars]

smedhavi, you have hit the nail on the head...

Such a product does NOT exist.

Even if you burnt a CDR as an audio CD with a 24/96 audio file on it, a CD player will NOT recognise it... Only your computer will... and play it back Downsampled.

An audio CD with 24/96 is NOT as per the redbook standard, and cannot be sold as an audio CD....

 

[marsilians]

...Even if you burnt a CDR as an audio CD with a 24/96 audio file on it, a CD player will NOT recognise it... Only your computer will... and play it back Downsampled.

PC based songs can be played back with high quality soundcards such as the m-audio audiophile 24/96 or asus xonar essence cards

An audio CD with 24/96 is NOT as per the redbook standard, and cannot be sold as an audio CD....

This is true.

One good workaround that I have used to create and play 24/96 recordings via my Oppo 980 is to convert them to 2 channel DVD-A format using something like the DVD-Audio Solo 2.0 software here Solo DVD-Audio Authoring - Author DVD at the best audio quality and use standard DVDs to copy the files over. I am very happy with the results.