Red Book Final
default -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 18:32
It appears that my experience with Meridian's 808.2 CD player is a little ahead of what others have experienced in listening thus far. And that's why it's been difficult for them to hear someone say that CD "sounds almost identical" with Hi-Rez. I understand.
So I'd like to summarize some thoughts on Red Book CD, then offer a little advice at the end.
First, Red Book was not a "compromise". Implying this, it means that they deliberately cut-off quality - for whatever reasons that had at the time. Choosing 16 bits, which captures far beyond what a symphony orchestra produces...and 44.1 sampling, which covers the upper limit of human hearing, makes this standard A-OK from the get-go. Remember, the Dutch wanted 14 bits - THAT would have been a compromise.
We have no reason to think that this standard, at the time of its creation, was sub-standard. Like I've stated before, engineers raised the capturing rates due to unforseen losses in production.
In his most recent TAS interview, Bob Stuart stated that we needed "20 bits" for sound. The problem is that he did not specify *where* we needed this. If it's in capturing - then yes, we did need more than 16 bits. (Mainly for large orchestra and grand piano, IMO - I don't know about lower dynamic range music like string quartets or jazz combos). But later in that same piece, Stuart asked if we can hear a difference between 24/88 and 16/44 (on playback) and his answer was NO.
Below is a list of "Super CD-only" playback systems (no "mixed" format) that I encourage folks to go out and hear - if they can. I have not heard all of these units. But it may help those in doubt understand what owners of the great 808.2 have been experiencing with CD.
Reference models from:
Burmester
MBL
Ypsilon
Metronome
Meridian
Chord
Orpheus
Soulution
Audio Research
Stahl-Tek*
Boulder*
* Will accept higher-than-44.1 rates
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
It's me, JR-1, above....
And I should add Theta's Generation VIII series 2, which came out last year. Looks great !!
I think a defintive test of whether high-resolution digital audio offers no sonic improvements (as JR-1 claims) is to compare a Reference Recordings HRx file with the CD of the same music, both read from a server into the same DAC. Although the CD is amazingly great (and better than I would have imagined CD sounding if you asked me several years ago), the HRx has resolution of low-level detail, instrumental texture, ease, and involvement missing from the 44.1kHz/16-bit version.
This doesn't mean that I can't enjoy CD, only that high-res (done right) offers more.
I am surprised you would say this. The Meridian 808.2 surely sounds better with CD than Berkeley Audio with CD. An optimized player is the way to go.
Red Book couldn't have been compromised if it (can) sound very close to Hi-Rez and still is improving. If the error-bit removal theory is true, then we can only expect *further* improvements with CD in the future.
I think you're in bind. You reported that Hi-Rez (via Berkeley) had "many features of a live mike feed"...then heard the Meridian 808.2. What's a reviewer to do ? Plus your remarks that Red Book was "compromised" - when they thought at the time ('78) that it characterized the waveform completely *and* sounds stellar on disc today. Esp. through "apodising" CD-only players.
From the title I got my hopes up...
Really, no more one-note single-point rants about CD "quality?"
But, alas, more desperate attempts to bait, cajole, and twist anyone within eyeshot to the less-than-obvious glories of 44.1.
I have some nice, vintage, buggy whips for that dead horse you're whipping so vociferously. :)
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Steve and Robert,
I think there is no point in responding to this fellow anymore - he obviously aims to polute every forum, doesn't understand red book's architecture and design, and doesn't even realize that the people he thinks he's quoting are recording in hi rez formats and/or are explicitly quoted as saying red book is a limiting technology.
Like McGrath... For example, read http://blog.stereophile.com/wesphillips/music_matters: "augmented by Peter McGrath's Sound Devices Model 722 hard disk recorder packed with McGrath's hi-rez digital recordings"
Or RH's comments in http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial: I recently had a conversation with Peter McGrath (one of the world's greatest recording engineers of classical music) about the sound quality differences between high-res and 16-bit/44.1kHz. He did the same experiment as you, listening to high-res directly from the computer and then listening to the same file downconverted to 16-bit/44.1kHz. He described the sound-quality difference as "like throwing a light switch."
Or even further below in that same thread: Bob Stuart has shown in a series of AES papers why 16-bit/44.1kHz is insufficient to encode all the information humans can hear.
Or even the comments in http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/surrounded200201.htm where it becomes apparent McGrath was using a Nagra D for 24-bit recordings "the past several years" - i.e. prior to the interview's date of 2002 - or "The Model One upsamples a 44.1kHz source to 88.2kHz. Peter thinks this direct multiple is more appropriate (and sounds better) than 96kHz"
Or even the following from Bob Stuart in his 2006 Stereophile interview http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/906bob/: "Steve Harris: So 16-bit is enough, then?
Stuart: No. It's not enough. On some recordings you can hear the limitations of that. More the limitations of the 44.1kHz than of the 16 bits. Sixteen bits give you a 90dB dynamic range. If the recording is properly made and the A/D converter's good, and at the mixing or mastering stage they didn't forget to dither it properly, within the window between the peak level of the music and the noise floor of the recording venue, then the hiss of correctly done 16-bit audio is around the room-noise level—sometimes it's above it, and that's a problem. But 44.1kHz, there's no doubt that that was a bit mean at the top end, and on certain instruments, violins and so on, you can hear that—just a little edge sometimes, which comes from that sample rate. "
And I can go on and on. So I am not sure why we are wasting more bandwidth for someone who, on top of everything else, is even misquoting these folks, leaving him with no credible arguments (not that he ever had any credibility with me after his original post on this subject on this site).
I am not misquoting.....
McGrath said he is "hard pressed to hear a difference" beyond 44.1, in his most recent TAS interview (last year). Bob Katz says beyond 44.1 is "possibly" better. One issue back (TAS), Stuart asked if we can hear a difference between 16/44 and 24/88 on playback and he said NO.
You seem to forget that we are *no longer recording* at 44.1 It's been 88.2 or higher since 1993. *If* higher rates were needed, we got them in capture, starting many years ago. You are doing the same thing that Robert and Steve (and other writers) are doing - assuming that we need to shift the capture rate to disc. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. 44.1 covers the entire range of human hearing...and higher capturing just makes sure we're not losing anything in production. It's as simple as that.....
If the 808.2 was *by far* the best CD that RH has ever heard, was it fair to use the Berkeley DAC for CD, then call Hi-Rez "vastly better" ? I don't think so. A dedicated CD-only system - esp. with "apodising" - is starting to reveal CDs true sound.
On a final note, Stuart and Harley are wrong (yes, Stuart can be wrong) when they claim/believe that the 808.2 "corrects errors" from earlier in the signal chain (encoding). We simply cannot do this. All playback can do is REVEAL WHAT'S ON THE RECORDING.
"44.1 covers the entire range of human hearing...and higher capturing just makes sure we're not losing anything in production. It's as simple as that....."
You don't have a clue!
Please explain.........
Your post is self-explanatory.
What specifically ?
Apparently, you are not informed as to cd digital sampling. Go read up on it!
Where am I wrong ?
Dude, the filtering starts at 22.5k so that the 44.1k sampling frequency DOES NOT interfere with the music. Therefore, virtually the entire harmonic/overtone structure IS LOST, never to be recovered. Get a good analog front end!
But if we can't hear ANYTHING above 20kHz, then it doesn't matter. Aren't the great gains in playback showing that IT was the problem ??!!
LP is loaded with inner-groove distortion, bass reduction and compromised dynamic range. This, on top of a lossy production process. We cannot say this about digital - *if* it was recorded high enough, for music that needs it.
The harmonics/overtone structure contributes to what we hear in the audible range and vice-versa.
Besides the Boyk article, there isn't much evidence for this. One report won't do it.
The proof is in the listening: Is any owner (or reviewer) of Meridian's 808.2 or Soulution's 740 CD player complaining about the highs ? Even in the least ? NO.
"The proof is in the listening: Is any owner (or reviewer) of Meridian's 808.2 or Soulution's 740 CD player complaining about the highs ? Even in the least ? NO."
Are they comparing to to an analog front end? It doesn't take a very expensive anolog setup to prove my point.
Maybe analog has the highs - but it falls far short elsewhere.
Bob Stuart said it (recently) himself - we *cannot* hear a difference between CD and high-sample rate, if CD's playback is done right.
Believe what you want - you're simply *not aware* of what's happening with CD, at the cutting-edge. This seems to be the case with many others as well, as I stated in my thread opener. I highly recommend hearing the Meridian or Soulution CD players......
"Maybe analog has the highs - but it falls far short elsewhere.
(I feel vindicated!)
Bob Stuart said it (recently) himself - we *cannot* hear a difference between CD and high-sample rate, if CD's playback is done right.
(Is Bob Stuart the only person in the world who can hear?)
Believe what you want - you're simply *not aware* of what's happening with CD, at the cutting-edge. This seems to be the case with many others as well, as I stated in my thread opener. I highly recommend hearing the Meridian or Soulution CD players......"
(I have heard the DCS Scarlatti stack, but didn't have analog to compare it to. The same dealer has the Meridien.)
Stuart represents a listening group...and I'm sure they've done exhaustive comparisons.
I would go back to the dealer and hear the Meridian...
Your sarcastic remarks (unique in this forum) are not a surprise.....
Why don't you just go hear one of the units I mentioned above - before you shoot your mouth off any further. Are you even an audiophile ?
Why did Bob Stuart say "we can't hear a difference" between Hi-Rez and CD (through the latest CD-only gear) ?
Why not just get a good analog front end? It doesn't take much to destroy the most expensive digital setup.
JR-1
No Esoteric in your initial list ? I recently spent several hrs 'playing' with an X-01/ Magicos and all those present (musically inclined audiophiles) were impressed with our final result (we changed all the cabling and the amplification). We realised we hadn't extracted all the system is cabable of - every change was immediately obvious.
What I'm looking for are PCM (and mainly CD-only) units that concentrate on 44.1 sampling.. But I'm sure your system was quite good.
Here's a few more I found:
AMR
Audio Note
Concert Fidelity
Gryphon
Navison
Vitus
A great technique that CD systems are starting to employ is asynchronous sample rate converting with 32-bit/192kHz upsampling. This much better releases the highs as captured. CD's problems in the highs are slowly going away - it was the playback screwing things up !!
Another: Lessloss