Super hi res music from your existing CDs. Impossible? Maybe not...
jaxwired
Posts: 201
Anybody ever heard of "compressed sensing" technology. Apparently this new technology allows for sparse data to be filled in with extremely high accuracy. Like fuzzy pictures made super hi-res and accurate with no extra data. Magic! Sounds like this could be applied to existing data on compact discs. Your existing CDs could be read and transformed into super hi res audio streams by the next generation of players. WOW!
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_algorithm
http://www.ratchetup.com/eyes/2010/03/compressed-sensing.html
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_algorithm
http://www.ratchetup.com/eyes/2010/03/compressed-sensing.html
2 Channel
NAD C545 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Bryston BP6 -> Bryston 4B SST2 -> Dynaudio Contour S1.4
NAD C545 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Bryston BP6 -> Bryston 4B SST2 -> Dynaudio Contour S1.4
Post edited by jaxwired on
Comments
-
But the standard for CD remains 16/44.1
On the other hand, if they can "clean up" the source material and properly remaster them onto CD, it can sound very good. An example would be DSD-remastered CDs....they're still regular CDs but the source material was remastered using DSD. -
Anybody ever heard of "compressed sensing" technology. Apparently this new technology allows for sparse data to be filled in with extremely high accuracy. Like fuzzy pictures made super hi-res and accurate with no extra data. Magic! Sounds like this could be applied to existing data on compact discs. Your existing CDs could be read and transformed into super hi res audio streams by the next generation of players. WOW!
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_algorithm
http://www.ratchetup.com/eyes/2010/03/compressed-sensing.html
Didn't Carver do this with the Digital Time Lens? I have this feature on my CD player and I find that it can sound almost as good as my vinyl, depending on the recording of course.:)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 -
But the standard for CD remains 16/44.1
The whole point is that it does not matter what resolution of data is actually on the CD. They can turn 500mb of data into 10 gig of data and the new super hi res version created is actually extremely close to perfect. In other words, they make hi res accurate data out of low res data.
So a CD player of the not so distant future would read whatever is on your old CDs, but would play like 10 or 50 times more data was there.2 Channel
NAD C545 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Bryston BP6 -> Bryston 4B SST2 -> Dynaudio Contour S1.4 -
You can't fashion a silk purse from a sow's ear!
If the recording is mediocre, upsampling won't help it. It will help in some circumstances. Does it compare favorably to hi rez? My experience is that most of the hi rez material is better mastered (or remastered) to begin with.Carl -
nooshinjohn wrote: »Didn't Carver do this with the Digital Time Lens? I have this feature on my CD player and I find that it can sound almost as good as my vinyl, depending on the recording of course.:)
Do you have a Carver CDP? If so which one?
I didn't know Bob made those..but then again there are A LOT of things I don't know!
cnhCurrently orbiting Bowie's Blackstar.!
Polk Lsi-7s, Def Tech 8" sub, HK 3490, HK HD 990 (CDP/DAC), AKG Q701s
[sig. changed on a monthly basis as I rotate in and out of my stash] -
You can't fashion a silk purse from a sow's ear!
If the recording is mediocre, upsampling won't help it. It will help in some circumstances. Does it compare favorably to hi rez? My experience is that most of the hi rez material is better mastered (or remastered) to begin with.
This is something new that makes what was considered "impossible" by pretty much everyone, possible. It's not a marketing gimmick...
I agree that bad recordings can't be made into good recordings. That's an entirely different issue.
Lots of people think that hi res versions sound better than redbook CDs. Many people also think vinyl sounds better than CDs because they are not a digitally sampled vesion of the original analog sound. This technology could possibly address both of those issues.2 Channel
NAD C545 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Bryston BP6 -> Bryston 4B SST2 -> Dynaudio Contour S1.4 -
-
Do you have a Carver CDP? If so which one?
I didn't know Bob made those..but then again there are A LOT of things I don't know!
cnh
I had a Carver CDP with DTL technology, back in the mid 80's.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
Interesting concepts.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
I'd be curious to hear one of these cds... the technology certainly is incredibly promising for MRIs. If you could decrease the length of time needed to scan someone from 45 minutes to 1 minute or even 5 minutes, that would be HUGE.
The efficiency of those machines relative to what we have now would be mind-boggling.2-Channel - So far...
Pre: Dodd ELP
DAC: W4S-Dac2
Source(s): Computer and Denon 2910
Amp: Parasound HCA-1200II
Speakers: LSi9s - Vr3 Fortress Mod -
I want one.And a sonic hologram generator too.SDA-2BTL with custom IC
Adcom 565 monoblocks--Monarchy Audio M-10 preamp
Theta Data Basic Transport--Stello DA100 Signature DAC--Camelot Dragon Pro2 MK III
Harman Kardon T-55c TT
DH Labs Q-10 Signature Speaker Cables With Furez silver plated copper bananas
Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy Cryo-Silver Reference AES/EBU
Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy Cryo-Silver i2s digital cable
4 Furutech FP-314Ag with FI-11cu Plugs/FI-11AG IECs--- Power Cords
DH LABS REVELATIONS ICs-amps
Revelation Audio Labs Paradise cryo-silver ICs-Source to pre -
honestly CDs dont sound that bad, 44.1khz will give you a 0hz-22khz response, theres no reason to increase sampling rate, now bit depth, of course. this was the original complaint of vinylphiles is the music was not as "smooth" the bit depth has alot to do with how much accuracy you have, its just like pixels, the more the better. in reality if you could look the sine wave of a recording and freeze it and view only 1/44100th of a second, you would see the wave is making sharp square transitions, where as vinyl makes perfect curved ones.
-
yepimonfire wrote: »in reality if you could look the sine wave of a recording and freeze it and view only 1/44100th of a second, you would see the wave is making sharp square transitions, where as vinyl makes perfect curved ones.
That has to be wrong. If your are right, I'm about to invent the greatest improvement in CD players ever. I call it "interpolation" or for marketing purposes "connect the dots"...2 Channel
NAD C545 -> Benchmark DAC1 -> Bryston BP6 -> Bryston 4B SST2 -> Dynaudio Contour S1.4 -
That has to be wrong. If your are right, I'm about to invent the greatest improvement in CD players ever. I call it "interpolation" or for marketing purposes "connect the dots"...
apparently you dont understand my post or how digital music works because it already is a "connect the dots" -
yepimonfire wrote: »in reality if you could look the sine wave of a recording and freeze it and view only 1/44100th of a second, you would see the wave is making sharp square transitions, where as vinyl makes perfect curved ones.
This isn't how digital playback works. A digital recording is a set of samples that get converted into an analog signal with the use of a DAC (this required for digital playback) and the output is a continuous wave. There are no stair steps or connect-the-dots going on. The original sound wave is reproduced exactly the way it looked when it was recorded. (Well, that's the goal anyway)
If your explanation was correct, (it's not) then you are implying that your speaker cones do not move in a continuous fashion. They would jump from point to point. This simply is not possible for a variety of reasons.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but I'm becoming impatient with common misunderstandings about the digital domain that so many people seem to have. Vinyl (analog) may sound better to you for various reasons but I assure you it is not more analog that digital when either is being played back. The sound wave your speakers create, whether the source be analog or digital, is purely analog.
Edit: I know 90% of people here hate this website - but they do a good job of explaining why digital audio isn't discontinuous, stair-stepped, or connect-the-dots: http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/exploring-digital-audio-myths-and-reality-part-1 -
yepimonfire wrote: »honestly CDs dont sound that bad, 44.1khz will give you a 0hz-22khz response, theres no reason to increase sampling rate, now bit depth, of course. this was the original complaint of vinylphiles is the music was not as "smooth" the bit depth has alot to do with how much accuracy you have, its just like pixels, the more the better. in reality if you could look the sine wave of a recording and freeze it and view only 1/44100th of a second, you would see the wave is making sharp square transitions, where as vinyl makes perfect curved ones.
SACD/DSD is 1 bit with a sampling rate of 2.82 MHz. It's the sampling rate that makes it sound better.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 -
This isn't how digital playback works. A digital recording is a set of samples that get converted into an analog signal with the use of a DAC (this required for digital playback) and the output is a continuous wave. There are no stair steps or connect-the-dots going on. The original sound wave is reproduced exactly the way it looked when it was recorded. (Well, that's the goal anyway)
If your explanation was correct, (it's not) then you are implying that your speaker cones do not move in a continuous fashion. They would jump from point to point. This simply is not possible for a variety of reasons.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but I'm becoming impatient with common misunderstandings about the digital domain that so many people seem to have. Vinyl (analog) may sound better to you for various reasons but I assure you it is not more analog that digital when either is being played back. The sound wave your speakers create, whether the source be analog or digital, is purely analog.
Edit: I know 90% of people here hate this website - but they do a good job of explaining why digital audio isn't discontinuous, stair-stepped, or connect-the-dots: http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/exploring-digital-audio-myths-and-reality-part-1
i understand that, i was stating why vinylphiles say it sounds better. the real reason why most people hear a difference is not because of the medium, but because sound engineers have brutally murdered and raped dynamic range.
and audioholics is full of a bunch of wanna-be know it alls, first i buy sony speakers, they destroy my rep and name call me and label me as a "certified bose consumer" then i buy a polk sub, same thing. as far as know-it-alls go, some moron tryed to convince me that the polk sub was a mid-bass woofer because it did not extend down to 20hz, when i corrected him and told him mid-bass was roughly 100-200hz, i was threatened with a ban. -
Ah, Nym, thou hast spoke the right! I partly understand your meaning, and I believe you are, in part right, that is to say, go figure if you spoke a word in season to the cove who invented photography, and told him that today we can actually take a low-res toilet-paper photography and actually reinvent its reality by 4K Upscaling, and make another and new thing of it, out of nowhere if you follow me, he would undoubtedly said you were talking through your hat, Sony pioneered this concept you illuminate, they already started this five years ago, a humble and modest beginning, take their next generation "dshexee" that is now the current state of the art in hi-res audio-decoding, encompassing the entire dts, and bypassing dolby atmos, in its stride, yes audio can be upscaled, but we are not there yet
-
Uh...Gustard X26 Pro DAC
Belles 21A Pre modded with Mundorf Supreme caps
B&K M200 Sonata monoblocks refreshed and upgraded
Polk SDA 1C's modded / 1000Va Dreadnaught
Wireworld Silver Eclipse IC's and speaker cables
Harman Kardon T65C w/Grado Gold. (Don't laugh. It sounds great!)
There is about a 5% genetic difference between apes and men …but that difference is the difference between throwing your own poo when you are annoyed …and Einstein, Shakespeare and Miss January. by Dr. Sardonicus -
Step away from the bong guy's...
-
Do you have a Carver CDP? If so which one?
I didn't know Bob made those..but then again there are A LOT of things I don't know!
cnh
Carver may well have made a cd player.
The first company Bob Carver (Phase Linear) started made a cd player.
Carver may have been his 2nd company, after phase linear, before he started Sunfire?
Forgot why I was responding to this thread,
I’d be interested in this tech. Our main source of music are our discs.
-
skipshot12 wrote: »
Carver may well have made a cd player.
The first company Bob Carver (Phase Linear) started made a cd player.
Carver may have been his 2nd company, after phase linear, before he started Sunfire?
Forgot why I was responding to this thread,
I’d be interested in this tech. Our main source of music are our discs.
Bob has made several CD players over the years (although I’ve never seen a Sunfire CD player), Perhaps the most desirable being the 490t that had a tube output stage. I had one for a while, but it wasn’t my thing, so I passed it on. Decent players, but suffering the effects of their age now, with most needing new belts, capacitors, etc. Time has not been kind to the D/A processing of older players either, with newer chips providing far superior sound - for the most part.“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn -
My current dac runs a 1985 chip set that I would take over every other dac I have heard so far, not even a close contest honestly.
Delta sigma is for the birds!- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit. -
^ I agree with this guy.
I still prefer the burr brown chipset/dacs in my pioneer spinner from 2001.
Oh so smooth for cd and is the best I’ve ever heard with dvd-a… bar none.
Sacd, I feel, is bettered in the Marantz & Oppo but still nothing to **** about. -
It may be possible to improve perceived SQ from the 16bit / 44.1KHz of CD. If the sample rate is only increased it would only be sampling the same level (data) multiple times and really wouldn't have benefit. Now if the algorithm were to make an accurte assumption about what happens to the signal (data) between those CD samples I think it would have benefit. Perhaps AI can be a useful tool here like it does for digital photographs. It still would be making an assumption about the data it is filling in between the samples, which may or may not be accurate. It may be perceived as sounding better to the ear but not necessarily more accurate to the original source than the CD, just like it does for digital photographs. They can be more pleasing to the eye but not necessarily accurate to the original scene.Stan
Main 2ch:
Polk LSi15 (DB840 upgrade), Parasound: P/LD-1100, HCA-1000A; Denon: DVD-2910, DRM-800A; Benchmark DAC1, Monster HTS3600-MKII, Grado SR-225i; Technics SL-J2, Parasound PPH-100.
HT:
Marantz SR7010, Polk: RTA11TL (RDO198-1, XO and Damping Upgrades), S4, CS250, PSW110 , Marantz UD5005, Pioneer PL-530, Panasonic TC-P42S60
Other stuff:
Denon: DRA-835R, AVR-888, DCD-660, DRM-700A, DRR-780; Polk: S8, Monitor 5A, 5B, TSi100, RM7, PSW10 (DXi104 upgrade); Pioneer: CT-6R; Onkyo CP-1046F; Ortofon OM5E, Marantz: PM5004, CD5004, CDR-615; Parasound C/PT-600, HCA-800ii, Sony CDP-650ESD, Technics SA 5070, B&W DM601 -
My current dac runs a 1985 chip set that I would take over every other dac I have heard so far, not even a close contest honestly.
Delta sigma is for the birds!
We all have our favorites for sure - for me, it’s the ESS Saber…. I’ve not found anything that comes close in my system.“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn -
I'm sure most have seen AI pictures that have 6-7 fingers and 3 arms. I'm not holding out that it could pick the right "bit" and put it in the correct place 🤔
