|
DVD-Audiobahn New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players. |
|
|
|
DVD-Audiobahn New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players. |
|
In Reply to: ZS KEKL, Frank and Non-A have you guys heard any Audiophile DVD-Audio's? posted by Teresa on February 12, 2005 at 17:18:39:
Is anything about 2 bits beyond CD resolution, ie, an order of magnitude better in resolution (2^2=8 about 10). in some fields of science 1bit difference is required for significance (informally), but i think for audio a factor of 10 is reasonable given that a factor of 10 is involved between loudness and power, and the 1 bit significance.As others have pointed out the original recording is often at 48 kHz or so, no point of resampling at higher freq..Also, how many studios have microphone with the bandwidth capable of recording at 192kHz?...very, very few. Ditto for 96kHz.
There is an engineering limit to DAC processes limited to thermal noise ("joules noise), and dacs resolution does not extend much beyond 20 bits (but the headroom given by 24 bit res can be useful). At some point you start resolving noise.
Read some of bryston's white papers and you'll see that for their preamp/dac they choose a 96 kHz dac instead of a 192 kHz dac, because the former (96kHz) generates *less* noise (even though, as Frank. pointed out, time resolution can be better at 192 kHz).
48 kHz fs, means about 24kHz bandwidth-perfect absolute fidelity to original waveform, the paradigm is that we cant hear beyond 20 kHz. So the wellknown thinking is that shallower filters (read cheaper) are possible with greater freq., and you decrease steep-filter related artifacts, but, again, Im not sure how important that is once you get these artifacts out beyond 22kHz.
as far as recreating the original music (and most of it, including the harmonics, <20kHz, measured) 48 kHz, in principle, is good enough. anything >20bits is not really possible (and think of limitation of speaker/transducers/room), and, IMO, 18 bits of true resolution would be a significant improvement over anything out there. And so should qualify as "Hires" (unless its SACD).
Where I agree with you though is that we may be able to "hear" beyond 20 kHz (I've tested myself with a piezo :-)), or rather that the enrgy present beyond 20kHz modulates what we perceive/hear below 20kHz. I can't say for sure so, when in doubt, id say play it safe and go for 96kHz especially since it is not a cost penalty to do so. But the recording itself has to match that resolution which is often not the case. Thats what we should be worried about: the recording mastering, transfer, etc. 1st (well and the music of course :-) before we can worry about "Hires".
Bottom line, id tend to say that 24bit/48kHz is in fact hires but improvments are possible provided we know more about how >20kHz impacts whats <20kHz, and we improve the recording equipment to match the greater fidelity afforded by the greater fs. Also, the technology in playback and dacs is still not up to handling the full capabilities at 24bits and 192 kHz. so 96kHz and 20 bits are kind of a limit in what is possible today in terms of Hires. 24bit/48kHz is close or better and so is hires, imo.
btw, I have many audophile labels on DVD-A (and some on SACD unfortunately, about 20 or so): chesky, AIX, telarc, CR, ...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Teresa, 99.875% of people on this forum have Audiophiles discs, what qualifies as "Hi-rez"... - NonA. 07:44:57 02/13/05 (3)
- "2^2=8 about 10" - Stephen 23:24:28 02/13/05 (2)
- Yo, the premier SACD shill is posting! - NonA. 06:20:37 02/14/05 (1)
- Actually, two squared is four, not eight;nt - Pacman 14:53:40 02/15/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
