Digital Audio Quality discussion. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: JanJansen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 03:35:53 pm
content: Lets hear it.Is CD Quality enough ?,i did not wanto ruin your technical samsung foolery discussion.

author: slicendice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:23:41 pm
content: I think this question should be better defined. My answer is, yes and no, it depends.That previous (Samsung audio foolery) thread contains pretty much all there is to be said about audio quality regarding bit depth and sample rate. I doubt there is much more that can be added. :-)

author: cat87
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 04:24:49 pm
content: This is a nice kettle of fish you've opened by posting thisShort answer would be: yes, it is. And even if it wasn't, most lossless format audio from torrents or any other interesting and obscure sites are most likely to be CD-rip or vinyl-rip. So not really much of a choce really....except buying Blu-rays or those new SD cards with lossless music on them.

author: dmills
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 05:23:37 pm
content: For the intended use case (A distribution medium) it is just fine, no need for anything better.Now for production you probably want a few more bits just because you need headroom which you don't need in a distribution medium, but that is a quite separate situation.This is not of course to say that there are not horrible implementations out there and equally horrible recordings of course....

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 05:58:47 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 20, 2017, 03:35:53 pmFor most people apparently yes. For me personally - definitely no.CheersAlex

author: amirm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 06:11:48 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 20, 2017, 03:35:53 pmThe ear's dynamic range is about 106 dB so CD's 16 bits doesn't quite make it at 96 dB. With noise shaping this can be achieved with 16 bits but you are never assured that the music you play is dithered that way.As for as sampling rate of 44.1 Khz, that should be enough theoretically but in practice sharp cut off filters to achieve 22.05 KHz bandwidth may be audible. See this article I wrote on results of double blind study on that:http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/As I explain in that article though, the question is academic. We are no longer forced into fitting things in CD container with advent of digital distribution. As such, I am in favor of getting the stereo master prior to downsampling and decimation to 16/44.1. If you want to have smaller files, you can always make them yourself with your choice of noise shaping/dither.That said, based on countless double blind tests I have done, vast majority of people including high-end audiophiles are blind to such deficiencies. So no one should have to apologize at all for listening to CD rate music. I do that all the time with my Tidal subscription even though I also have a large library of high-resolution audio I have purchased.

author: cat87
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 08:30:00 pm
content: Before writing anything else, let me make the disclaimer that I love to listen to nice music but I am in no way fanatical about audio setups and audio cables that cost as much as a house.So, that out of the way, out of curiossity, to see what everyone was fussing about (CDs vs digital lossless) I did a simple experiment a while back. I went here:http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?and downloaded some tracks at different bitrates.I downloaded the CD version (44 KHz, 16 bit), the stereo 96 KHz, 192K and the 352K. These 3 were 24 bit. Then I listened to them on my PC (M-audio Revolution something something sound card and stereo speakers from the time companies did things the right way)To me, the 44KHz and 96 KHz didn't really seem different at all. The 192 KHz sounded almost identical... maybe 1 or 2 things extra that I could make out. The 352 KHz version seemed to have a few strings here and there that I could hear, maybe a bit more clarity, but that's pretty much it.Ok, I do not have an audiophile set-up, but the difference between the CD version and the top notch 352 KHz wasn't much at all. Maybe some headphones would have helped, but that again, those are not my style.So, "quality" I guess is really, something relative.

author: Conrad Hoffman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 08:41:51 pm
content: I'm mildly fanatical but also 62 years old. Not much left above 13 kHz. Get yourself a really good microphone and record some actual sounds at various sample rates and bit depths. It's easy to do your own experiment these days. In my case, CD quality is as good as it gets. There's no improvement with increased sample rate or bit depth. If you're a teenager that never uses ear buds, you might see a gain, but it won't last long!

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 09:01:42 pm
content: Properly dithered distribution uncompressed CD 44.1k 16bit stereo is phenomenal for consumers. A lot of the time, it's the poor cheap CD mastering techniques, consumer junky DAC and amp which degrade things. Anything higher than 16bit is usually for studio quality. There may be a benefit for 24 bit audio in the case where you want to record super dynamic range recordings like true classical music going from the quietest moments to the full orchestra going all out without any dynamic range compression, or in movies recorded with such dynamic range from natural voice levels to full explosions. But, 99.9% of consumer setups don't have the audio speakers and power and quality of equipment to fully take advantage of this, so, pretty much all modern recordings don't come to consumers with such a wide dynamic range, even the movies...Now, the properly dithered CD 44.1k 16bit sound, which can give you more than the 96db thanks to the dithering and limitations of the human ear, but this is lost when compressing the sound with .mp3, or .aac, especially with any fine quiet audio above 12Khz. Our ears aren't too sensitive in this range and this is where the compressors loose the most definition which is why low bit-rates sound just fine to most of us. The sound makes it through the compressor if the source is emphasized enough at the higher frequencies, but finer fidelity does drop out with any heavy percussion & heavy mid tones as the compressor has to deal with them. The only compression I've seen which doesn't have this problem was 'Cool Edit 96's Mpeg Layer II, AT&T musicam model, 384kbs compression'. (Yes, 1997 software) Third party mpeg layer 2 and later versions of Cooledit2000&Audition's mp2 (which compressed much faster) have the same high frequency dropout as any modern mpeg layer 3 encoders and mpeg 4 .aac encoders. (Disappointing when I discovered this!) This may be the one region where it may be more beneficial to use 24bit, 48, or 96 Khz audio, when compressing and decompressing audio. But I am not convinced many who release any compressed audio will take the time to make sure everything is as it should be unless it is the super expensive classical genre and mega full blown Hollywood productions.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 10:32:12 pm
content: Yes of course it is. To say otherwise is audiophoolery.The numbers confirm this, as does double blind testing. The dynamic range of dithered 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio exceeds that of the human ear.(In recording and production however, higher sample rates allow much gentler anti aliasing filters which preserve the HF component, before being digitally brickwalled prior to downsampling. Higher bit depths give the headroom necessary for large level changes during production.)Do NOT blame 16/44.1 for the sound if crappy mastering and loudness war DRC.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 10:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 20, 2017, 03:35:53 pmDone properly, yes!But ... 48kHz has someslightadvantages, especially if you're going to mp3 encode it. To perfectly reproduce a signal you need to bandwidth limit it to below the nyquist frequency. 48kHz allows you to use a slightly less aggressive low-pass filter at the mastering stage (more gradual rolloff). Is the difference audible? That's debatable, but IMHO 48kHz is the only "upgrade" from CD that isn't phoolery.

author: Jr460
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 11:40:25 pm
content: Some times you run into quality issues mixing completely in the box if the project is set to 44.1k/16. Plug-ins may not be coded correctly and the flaws show up more.I've always used 48k/24 for the base tracks and mixing and can hear the difference. It can be slight and you have to really know the material. When you have recorded some tracks, edited and mix them all, one gets to know them very well. Then you hear it after being rendered to 44.1k/16 and it seems like something is missing. Even with top notch mastering.I know some people say that 96k sounds much better to them, and I think that is more a problem with plug-ins that are better behaved at 96k.The people doing 192k I think are fools.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 12:18:43 am
content: Audio is not always used for what you can hear. It can also be about the experience. While I'm thinking about the 'experience' of bass there's also psychoacoustics (which is an abused term, but you're just a phool for not "believeing" in it as you are otherwise.. Grey noise and all). This is more about sampling rate than it is bit'depth related.Bit depth may become important if you want to record something that's not immediatly audible for us, but still is audible to some; say bats. The errors implied by quantization (at all bit depths but 16 bit is easy to try for yourself) is definitely audible if you are in a situation where you do it many times.Try to record something and simulate digital out board effects by looping your track from your DAW and back to it. Do it five or six times and compare. Place both tracks in your DAW and set your master to MONO, now phase invert one track and listen to the difference. Make sure the first sample still is aligned or else it will be an exercise in determining latency of your in/out loop.16/44.1 is good enough for listening but not at all for experiencing.Explosions "sounds" better if you get 8Hz thrown in your chest, Doppler effects / phase shifts recorded with binaural mics are experienced as much more believable if they can retain their spectrum above 20k. Also makes it easier to use the data for calculations.Audio does not always mean audibleat least not in the digital domain.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 12:42:09 am
content: The Op's question is not well defined.Quote from: JanJansen on January 20, 2017, 03:35:53 pmFor what? I ask.If the question is constrained to thecapabilitiesof a physical CD (or digital equivalent) as a delivery medium to a consumer, then I would say "Yes". Whether the quality of the program material actually achieves that level is another matter entirely.If applied to the entire production chain, then I would say "No". I have always held the opinion that you work with a subject at the highest quality possible all through the production process and only downsample as the final step.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 10:47:38 am
content: It could be enough for practical purposes, but what if we would like to strive to the best of the best sound experience?There is a new discussion if the human is perceptable to timing of the delivery of the sound.This would come from evolution being able to pinpoint the sound source in case of a threat (wild animal)Some studies seem to indicate that the timing resolution of the human ear could be as fine as 10us in which case, sampling frequencies of 200kHz or higher would be required for reproduction.Now I am not actively monitoring these discussions but they did pop up on discussion of the new MQA format.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2017, 06:52:54 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on January 20, 2017, 10:32:12 pmhelp....help me.....What could have been such excellent recordings with modern tech,,, this is ruining so much music...

author: JanJansen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 04:23:39 pm
content: For music with soft passages, then CD quality is to low, thats why they boost it, i like dynamic changes, you can hear soft parts is very low quality,computer systems and cheap sets have compressor build in to make it flat, boosts the low quality.I,m still waiting for CD replacement, if you all dont hear difference they wont make it,there should be already audio-DVD and better for long time if you ask me.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 04:28:45 pm
content: For me, yes, it's fine as long as the CD master has been produced properly in studio and post, I.E. not subjected to the digital 'loudness enhancing' that so many are.But the music I listen to, probably not that important.I know what *really* good HiFi used to sound like but age and ambient noise from all the miles I drive has probably destroyed that.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 05:21:38 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 23, 2017, 04:23:39 pmDVD-A already exists as well as SACD, but, less than 1% of the music is available on those formats and they usually cost mega $$$ for an album.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 05:58:27 pm
content: CD performance is all that is required. Speakers/room layout/headphones performance and specifications are way less accurate and thus sets the limits of the accurate reproduction of sound.You would think that an engineering forum like this would understand how to analyze audiosystem capabilities and identify the existing limits of performance. Now when will my consumer level(and priced) plasma speakers be available?

author: bghende
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 06:08:53 pm
content: FWIW, in my opinion you are way better off investing in better audio gear (preamp, amp, speakers) than bothering with hi-res audio files. Get a Tidal subscription, stream lossless CD quality, and spend the money you saved on better hardware.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 08:49:00 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 23, 2017, 04:23:39 pmMaybe in a sound insulated chamber, but in a normal environment 96 dB on top of ambient is too loud.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 08:54:39 pm
content: Quote from: JanJansen on January 23, 2017, 04:23:39 pmIt shouldn't be. Try a different DAC. It's taken me awhile to find a good one, oddly enough, some of the older resistor ladder dacs properly engineered sound far superior compared to today's 1 bit dacs. Or try a different CD. Do not presume today's consumer audio equipment is engineered for fine quality.

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 09:40:03 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on January 21, 2017, 10:47:38 amNo

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 10:14:11 pm
content: With the risk of being castigated as a "audiophool" for posting this....Based on having bought one, and built one home made reference mic for making new monitor speakers for my church, I have leaned that the quality of home and commercial audio gear is all over the place. Home audio and car audio is often tailored to what marketing people "Think" you want in psycho-acoustics. If your going to do blind tests, sweep the system with something like Holm Impulse software first..The small group of professional musicians who play weekends at my church have amazing hearing. My hearing is very good for my age, I'm the preferred house mixer for big productions. But again, they have amazing hearing with regards to pitch, phase delay, and overall response. Making my eight element line arrays flat enough for them took a few iterations. Stuff that sounded /swept just fine at home prior to installation required two rework trips, then I switched to Holm Impulse and tailored the speakers for flatness, then EQed for the correct "warmth" and corrected a bit for the room. Then added sound adsorbing wall hangings to kill off any echo and bass corner. Finally that met approval.My point being, have good test conditions for your response auditions. I learned the hard way that there is flat, and there is a lot more "not flat". There are also little details like making sure all audio systems in the building are on the same phase of the three phase, so the differential signaling works best, use of shielded cables etc... Residual 60 Hz really adds something like inter-modulation distortion for people with good hearing.No, I'm not an Audiophool, but I stand amazed at what a practiced ear can hear. If one is doing testing, one should disclose if one is a musician or not.. There is a qualitative difference in hearing if one plays, and perhaps a more subjective scrutiny then those who don't... I don't... Also never play a musician any playback of their own music when testing. They hate that. I invariably hear " I don't sound like that", and clearly what they hear in their head when playing in a group is far different then what is emitted from the sound system. One of my ex-bosses in audio land asked me why I had a variable rate CD player playing his music two cents of pitch off... Without looking at the display...44 KHz CD is more then good enough for me if well mixed, but I've learned to choose my test mixes carefully, and use a lot of different artists playing many different styles of music, as well as some sine sweeps. There are a lot of albums out there with horrible mixes. I've learned to tell when I'm hearing a MP3 or not... I can just tell if I'm hearing 96 KHz on classical music or female vocals...Again, sweep the audition system if you can... Again, listening on a poorly compensated system is bad.... A good audio system need not be expensive, and its amazing what a modern 99$ EQ can correct for... I have some low cost home gear, that when swept on the bench, is far better then much of the pro audio gear I use on weekends..I like the answer of quote "Yes, No, and It Depends..." as humans are very subjective....Links...http://www.holmacoustics.com/holmimpulse.phpMy beloved PRM1http://www.presonus.com/products/prm1My favorite design for a home made reference system..http://www.johncon.com/john/wm61a/Steve

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 10:55:22 pm
content: Personally, going to 24 bit 96KHz and then lossless compression of that is about the end point -- you will not hear anything more going with a higher bit depth or sampling rate. Yes, 24 bit and 96KHz are more than needed, but 16 bit and 44KHz isn't quite enough for the reasons already mentioned. At this point and certainly going forward the storage requirements are not that big a deal so going with 24/96 should be about the end.Of course, many younger folks that should have better hearing are perfectly OK with crappy MP3's and other low bit rate lossy compression audio so for them CD quality is way more than they care about. I say many younger folks, but not all younger folks just to be clear. Quality audio components aren't selling like they used to and one of the reasons is that many younger people listen to lossy audio with headphones or ear buds so the market for better speakers etc is no where near what it was 25 years ago.Brian

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2017, 11:15:14 pm
content: Yup, quality is out the window. Sounding real is out the window. Big bassy boom and loudness is in....I must also note that many never heard the original instruments in real life or don't know how the recording mixing artist intended what the final sound should be like. It's also not what people want to hear, they want the bigger bassy boom and loudness sound and manufacturers of the AV equipment want to make profit by creating products consumers want to buy as cheaply as possible.