Lets talk Sample rates.
Options
Comments
-
Hmm, so I've come to an epiphany.
If cables (conductors) don't affect sound, then how on earth do capacitors affect sound (which I've personally heard the massive differences they do make)?
…Good point. I suppose the only real argument I could give is that with cables I'm testing frequency response, the capacitors actually gave entirely new detail and let me hear parts of the song I genuinely couldn't before (I did do a comparison side by side with the old board).
I can't necessarily say I genuinely did though, it really could be placebo.
…
Now you’re talking in circles.
Carry on …
Yeah it's entirely contradictory, I've acknowledged that. I'm just saying that I'm open to the fact that it's placebo. I mean, hey, wouldn't it be funny if I was wrong?
I hear a difference, yet it might be my brain playing tricks on me. Seems to make sense to me. My perception might be different than the objective truth. So what? I could have worded it better but you know what I meant.
Have you heard of the law of non-contradiction?
Or… that “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways?” (James 1:7,8)
At this point, you’re on your own kid.CD Players: Sony CDP-211; Sony DVP-S9000ES; Sony UDP-X800M2 (x2); Cambridge Audio CXC
DACs: Jolida Glass FX Tube DAC III (x2); Denafrips Ares II (x2)
Streamers: ROKU (x3); Bluesound Node 2i and Node N130 w/LHY LPS // Receivers: Yamaha RX-V775BT; Yamaha RX-V777
Preamps: B&K Ref 50; B&K Ref 5 S2; Classe CP-800 MkII; Audio Research SP16L (soon)
Amps: Niles SI-275; B&K ST125.7; B&K ST125.2; Classe CA-2300; Butler Audio TDB-5150
Speakers: Boston Acoustics CR55; Focal Chorus 705v; Wharfedale Diamond 10.2; Monitor Audio Silver-1; Def Tech Mythos One (x4)/Mythos Three Center (x2)/Mythos Two pr.; Martin Logan Electromotion ESL; Legacy Audio Victoria/Silverscreen Center; Gallo Acoustics Reference 3.1; SVS SB-1000 Pro; REL HT-1003; B&W ASW610; HifiMan HE400i
Turntable: Dual 721 Direct-Drive w/Audio Technica AT-VM95e cart
Cables: Tripp-lite 14ga. PCs, Blue Jeans Cable ICs, Philips PXT1000 ICs; Kimber Kable DV30 coaxial ICs; Canare L-4E6S XLR ICs; Kimber Kable 8PR & 8TC speaker cables. -
Good info. I suspected as much - not necessarily those specifics, exactly, but that a fine degree of offset would be detectable.I disabled signatures.
-
Can we get back to goats?
-
According to a study conducted by Aalto University and genelac, the human ear can detect timing anomalies to a half a millisecond.
This should be why very minute speaker movement (assuming proper setup) can be so drastic in the changes.
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
-
That is true, I never thought of that. -
Not to mention the design of time alignment in some speakers.2ch rig:Speakers: LSi9s with VR3's Fortress modsPreamplifier: Parasound P5Amplifier: Parasound A23CDP: Pioneer DV-563ACables: Wireworld Equinox 7 XLR ICs, Wireworld Ultraviolet 7 USB, AudioQuest Q2s, AudioQuest NRG X(preamp) -
Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
-
Hot sauce!
Brian
One-owner Polk Audio RTA 15TL speakers refreshed w/ Sonicap, Vishay/Mills and Cardas components by "pitdogg2," "xschop" billet tweeter plates and BH5 | Stereo REL Acoustics T/5x subwoofers w/ Bassline Blue cables | Rogue Audio Cronus Magnum III integrated tube amp | Technics SL-1210G turntable w/ Ortofon 2M Black LVB 250 MM cart | Sony CDP-508ESD CD player (as a transport) | LampizatOr Baltic 4 tube DAC | Nordost & DH Labs cables/interconnects | APC H15 Power Conditioner | GIK Acoustics room treatments | Degritter RCM -
-
This thread's got it all! It's like its own microforum!I disabled signatures.
-
-
Hi Fred!Salk SoundScape 8's * Audio Research Reference 3 * Bottlehead Eros Phono * Park's Audio Budgie SUT * Krell KSA-250 * Harmonic Technology Pro 9+ * Signature Series Sonore Music Server w/Deux PS * Roon * Gustard R26 DAC / Singxer SU-6 DDC * Heavy Plinth Lenco L75 Idler Drive * AA MG-1 Linear Air Bearing Arm * AT33PTG/II & Denon 103R * Richard Gray 600S * NHT B-12d subs * GIK Acoustic Treatments * Sennheiser HD650 *
-
Hey Rich.
-
1/6 -
What are you listening to! 😳"if it's not fun, it's not worth it & remember folks, "It's All About The Music"!!
***************************** -
-
Fred’s back? I thought he still had another five to go before he came up for parole…The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
This is too much. Laptop to streamer. End of story.
We shall se how it goes....
Awe, chit son!
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
Are we bringing this $***show of a thread back to life?
2ch rig:Speakers: LSi9s with VR3's Fortress modsPreamplifier: Parasound P5Amplifier: Parasound A23CDP: Pioneer DV-563ACables: Wireworld Equinox 7 XLR ICs, Wireworld Ultraviolet 7 USB, AudioQuest Q2s, AudioQuest NRG X(preamp) -
Back to sample rates…
I hear a difference between the cd of John Lee Hooker’s “Boom Boom” vs the 24/96 DAD disc of the same.
I don’t know how to explain the difference in words but will try.
On the 24/96 disc it has a punchier sound. Specific to the bass, it seems to hit harder.
I find it to be the same on my DVD-A discs compared to CD of the same recordings.
Another good disc for comparison is Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors.
DVD-A has a stronger punch than the CD, on my system.
Can’t comment on sampling with digital files as I don’t have that capability at this time.
Again, I can’t explain the difference with words, it’s just something one needs to hear for themselves.
It’s as hard as me trying to explain what brown smells like 😳
I have found the same on Blu Ray audio discs.
The sound on those are as good/better compared to the DVD-A discs.
And, there’s a difference between those two and SACD. Don’t bother asking me to explain what differences I hear, it’s something I can’t explain…
Best way I can describe it is, I always find myself preferring the music on those compared to CD? -
Same mixes?
-
When I compared the same title between both SACD and DVD-a, I found the DVD-a in most cases sounded punchier yet smoother than the SACD. Both on the same machine either my Denon 3910 or the Oppo 205. The Oppo sounded better between the two players, as it should with much better dac chips.
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »Same mixes?
Interesting question. I'm guessing all one would have to do is check the credit notes in the booklet both formats came with?2ch rig:Speakers: LSi9s with VR3's Fortress modsPreamplifier: Parasound P5Amplifier: Parasound A23CDP: Pioneer DV-563ACables: Wireworld Equinox 7 XLR ICs, Wireworld Ultraviolet 7 USB, AudioQuest Q2s, AudioQuest NRG X(preamp) -
^ Same mixes?
Good question. I do not know that they are. -
Now even if it was just my ear, the mathematicians and scientists who invented the CD chose 16/44.1 because of the fact that's as good as they determined the human ear to be. Furthermore plenty of people, including some more scientists (this stuff ain't hard to google) have also determined the difference is either so minor and generally related to hearing artifacts and distortions or non existent.
It is always gratifying to find a young person interested in math and science. Since you have professed a keen interest in the mathematics and science behind the design of consumer grade stereophonic reproduction equipment, you may find the following information helpful. Since the topic of this thread is sample rates, I think the OP and other members may find the information useful, even if you do not.
1. You are not correct that the mathematicians and scientists who invented the CD chose 16/44.1 because of the "fact" that's as good as they determined the human ear to be. The values of 16 bit depth and 44,000 sampling frequency were chosen as an economic compromise. Digital home stereo equipment with higher bit depths and higher sampling frequencies would not have been commercially accepted in the early to mid 1980s. They finally got things right with SACD (sampling rate 2.8824 MS/s (million samples per second)), but look at how expensive super audio CD (SACD) players and SACD discs were at market introduction. Long before SACD, oversampling CD players offered better sound quality due to their ability to move digital noise further away from the fundamental bandwidth of music signals.
By the way, all of my 16/44.1 CD rate digital music rips were converted to 2.8824 MS/s DSD SACD rate. My dCS Debussy DAC does further upsampling to 3.07 MS/s prior to digital to analog conversion. If 16/44.1 was the platinum standard for digital sampling rates, there would not be the decades of research and development in higher sampling rates and commensurately higher analog performance..
In 1933, Bell Laboratories scientist Harry Nyquist invented the Nyquist sampling theorem which states:
fs =/> 2B, or
The sampling rate (fs) of an analog signal must be equal to or greater than twice the bandwidth (B) in the analog signal, where the bandwidth is determined by the highest frequency in the signal. For recovery of the highest fundamental frequency in the signal, a sampling rate equal to twice the bandwidth of the signal is sufficient. However, for complete reconstruction of the analog signal and its harmonic structure, a sampling rate greater than twice the bandwidth of the signal is required.
Humans nominally have a hearing range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. However humans can feel sound frequencies below 20 Hz and above 20,000 Hz. Some deaf people can distinguish between audio signals with just a fundamental frequency and the same signal with its harmonic structure intact. These facts were well known to the mathematicians and scientists who gave us "perfect sound forever" with the invention of the CD.
The mathematical dual of the Nyquist theorem is Claude Shannon's channel capacity theorem which states:
C = B log(base 2) (1 +SNR), or
The channel capacity (C) in bits/second is equal to the signal bandwidth (B) times the base 2 logarithm of the signal to noise ratio plus 1, where SNR is expressed in absolute terms rather than decibels. Shannon's theorem is illuminating because it takes into account the effect of NOISE on a digital transmission medium. A received audio signal is a combination of the transmitted signal plus the accumulated noise in the transmission path.
The more acoustical and electrical noise your stereo playback system transmits, the less audio signal you will hear. It is like pouring raw sewage in a glass of crystal clear pure water. The more sewage you add, the less water you taste. Consider someone wanting to taste test a variety of bottled waters. If all there is to taste is the waters themselves, it should be easy to discern among their tastes. Add equal measures of the same sewage to the same waters, and the taste tests become increasingly difficult.
2. While were are on the subject of design compromises for consumer grade stereophonic reproduction equipment, the archives of the Bell Laboratories Technical Journal reveal that the original design for home stereo systems was a three channel design, with left, center, and right channel speakers. However, although the three channel design was much more accurate from a human hearing perspective, adding a third channel to phonograph records, and cartridge designs capable of three channel playback, were simply not economical feasible for mass market stereo equipment. Therefore, we got stuck with two channel stereo due to economic considerations, rather than the so-called limitations of human hearing.
3. While you are digging through the archives of the Bell Laboratories Technical Journal, I invite to peruse selected journal articles concerning the decades of research and development that went into copper wire formulations, the insulating material for said wire, and the various noise-cancelling twist geometries for said wire. This was decades of research and billions of dollars spent to optimize the noise performance of a telephone system that carried a band-limited (voice frequencies 300 Hz to 3400 Hz). How much more involved would you think the mathematics and science would need to be to transmit music signals with all of their harmonic structure and sound localization cues intact?
4. The more resolving (low noise) your stereo playback equipment is, the easier it is to hear stereophonic performance differences in audio equipment.
5. The more experienced you become in stereophonic sound localization, the easier it is to hear stereophonic performance differences in audio equipment.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
It is like pouring raw sewage in a glass of crystal clear pure water. The more sewage you add, the less water you taste.
Best analogy ever! -
It is like pouring raw sewage in a glass of crystal clear pure water. The more sewage you add, the less water you taste.
Best analogy ever!
The majority of my career in the electrical engineering profession (telecommunications industry - Bell Labs, AT&T etc.) has been in activities aimed at reducing the effects of electrical and mechanical noise on audio signals. I have a better appreciation than most of consumer grade stereo equipment that successfully address noise reduction. This is particularly true of cables, where noise reduction efforts can often be more challenging.
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
^ DK….. Nailed it.
