3 ms·

> The higher resolution music shows itself as soundstage, not details. Hogwash that doesn’t stand up to A-B testing. What does “soundstage” even mean in this c

> The higher resolution music shows itself as soundstage, not details. Hogwash that doesn’t stand up to A-B testing. What does “soundstage” even mean in this context? Soundstage at least as commonly used is going to be overwhelmingly controlled by speaker design, placement and room acoustics (something that “audiophiles” tend to ignore - it is both the least sexiest and yet most important issue). Of course if someone tells you are listening to a 192 kHz recording you are likely to perceive it as better - humans are very prone to suggestibility. Once you are over 35 you’ll also find out that your high frequency perception rapidly drops off a cliff as you age and sample rates at <30kHz are more than enough. It’s a bit sad when you realize you’re no longer bothered by coil wine in the 10s of KHz.

bayindirh 4y ago
As an ex-orchestra player I won't call it hogwash. Soundstage means the size of the stage you can envision and the distance between instruments you can place them in your mind while you're listening the sound source your eyes closed. It's best envisioned with nicely mastered albums, and good recordings of symphony orchestras. Considering you mic a 100-person orchestra from above with 8-10 mics, via a nice digital and lossless path, you can create the same vision of size in your mind just with two, reasonably priced, high resolution bookshelf speakers (Heco Celan GT302, or even Creative GigaWorks T20/T40 works well), run via a half-decent full resolution AB amplifier. As you introduce lossy algorithms and increase compression, the high-frequency hints start to get clipped, and the sense of atmosphere transforms to a smaller, flatter room. It doesn't sound bad per se, but if you know how the original sounds, you can say something is amiss. You don't need $10K systems to experience this. Just a good amp, a pair of good speakers, and a well mastered album. That's all.
- Aloha 4y ago
  The thing is, almost every digital format will have better stereo separation than Vinyl will (and by extension a larger soundfield). The shallower dynamic range of vinyl means you must mix much more conservatively, you cant make as loud, you cant transition from quiet to loud as quickly, your high and low levels must be closer together. Those limitations however, perhaps surprisingly, can actually can make for a better sounding mix. However a lossless digital format will always exceed vinyl in every technical characteristic, however because of quantization it may not sound quite as good, particularly if the entire recording chain was analog. That all said, an mix intended for vinyl may indeed sound better than one intended for digital, because the inherent limits of vinyl produce mixes that sound more 'natural' to people, albeit one that is not strictly transparent.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    > The thing is, almost every digital format will have better stereo separation than Vinyl will. My initial comment about wider soundstage was for 24bit/192KHz and above sound carriers, carrying lossless audio from the source, not for vinyls. :) I listen vinyl not for the detail it provides.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      I actually generally strongly prefer the quieter mix on vinyl, I also like vinyl for that certain... texture? it has. The only time I ever want a very high dynamic range is when I'm listening to orchestral music. Otherwise for casual listening, I prefer the quieter mix of an album intended for vinyl.
  - Slow_Hand 4y ago
    In your fourth paragraph you refer to digital quantization, which I imagine is you referring to the idea of digital "stair steps" in the wave form's sampling. In reality that's not a thing that actually happens. This stair step visualization is an abstraction that is used to illustrate sampling theorem. The reality is that digital wave forms replicate as perfectly smooth waves when they are converted back to an analog signal, as demonstrated here: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml That said, I agree with all of your other points.
- riceart 4y ago
  What does any of this have to do with 192khz vs 48 and 24 bit vs 16 bit mastering and reproduction? You completely ignore everything relevant stated about the psychoacoustic performance of adults. > high-frequency hints Unless you’re 10 years old I’ll assume the upper frequency range of your hearing is no more than 22 kHz and that is pushing it. Hearing above 16 kHz becomes heavily attenuated in adulthood. When people talk high frequency they really mean stuff in the 2 to 6 kHz range. In any event 48 kHz sampling for reproduction/storage is beyond plenty. > Just a good amp, a pair of good speakers, and a well mastered album. That's all. And ignore room acoustics.. sure that doesn’t sell speakers and amps. It’s much easier to say use this expensive power cord which has no effect on anything then make people have to think about engineering.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    The interaction of harmonics and how it affects sound perception is a highly debated subject, but it’s same for every sense. Both eyes and ears have practical limits on what it hears, but even with that limits, brain can distinguish details so small, we have no ways to describe them. Some people will describe higher bitrate, higher sampling rate sound to be smoother, even if they can’t tell what is the difference. Similarly, some people will describe same higher bandwidth signal to be more airy or open. Hearing tests do not quantify these details. A solid example is Foo Fighters’ album, Wasting Light. Recorded and mastered on analog equipment, the album has sound qualities hard to describe. Yet it feels full, satisfying to listen, and doesn’t fatigue the ears. Maybe you can point a difference with a spectrogram, but the difference can be highlighted by your ears and brain in much more detailed manner. Another example is how people listen to higher bandwidth music. People are more engaged with higher quality, higher bandwidth sound. They concentrate for longer periods and listen more intently. Again, the brain can notice something or hearing tests can’t quantify. Lastly, people find images taken by cameras with Foveon sensors more appealing from color perspective, because the color resolution is much higher. While Bayer sensors’ color reproduction is both true and high resolution, brain can detect higher color resolution with ease. All senses are trained on real world over the decades, and know how to distinguish between real and fake. So, it’s no surprise that brain can detect things which we can’t put our finger on squarely. My rooms are not acoustically special. They are pretty standard, if not mundane. The equipment I use is high end, vintage stuff; but they are not exotics. Cabling is done per manuals of components. The only power conditioning I have is a surge protector which claims to have line noise filtering, but this is not why I got it. However, all the qualities I discussed here is audible on that set. The interesting part is, I’m using the same set for 30 years, and I know its sound character like my name. I can hear the same details and get the same atmosphere when I listen to the same albums (mostly CDs), so brain can reconstruct something we can’t describe from how sound interacts with both air and our ears. Lastly, I can still easily hear switch mode power supply noise, without even trying.

bayindirh 4y ago

As an ex-orchestra player I won't call it hogwash. Soundstage means the size of the stage you can envision and the distance between instruments you can place them in your mind while you're listening the sound source your eyes closed. It's best envisioned with nicely mastered albums, and good recordings of symphony orchestras. Considering you mic a 100-person orchestra from above with 8-10 mics, via a nice digital and lossless path, you can create the same vision of size in your mind just with two, reasonably priced, high resolution bookshelf speakers (Heco Celan GT302, or even Creative GigaWorks T20/T40 works well), run via a half-decent full resolution AB amplifier. As you introduce lossy algorithms and increase compression, the high-frequency hints start to get clipped, and the sense of atmosphere transforms to a smaller, flatter room. It doesn't sound bad per se, but if you know how the original sounds, you can say something is amiss. You don't need $10K systems to experience this. Just a good amp, a pair of good speakers, and a well mastered album. That's all.

Aloha 4y ago
The thing is, almost every digital format will have better stereo separation than Vinyl will (and by extension a larger soundfield). The shallower dynamic range of vinyl means you must mix much more conservatively, you cant make as loud, you cant transition from quiet to loud as quickly, your high and low levels must be closer together. Those limitations however, perhaps surprisingly, can actually can make for a better sounding mix. However a lossless digital format will always exceed vinyl in every technical characteristic, however because of quantization it may not sound quite as good, particularly if the entire recording chain was analog. That all said, an mix intended for vinyl may indeed sound better than one intended for digital, because the inherent limits of vinyl produce mixes that sound more 'natural' to people, albeit one that is not strictly transparent.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  > The thing is, almost every digital format will have better stereo separation than Vinyl will. My initial comment about wider soundstage was for 24bit/192KHz and above sound carriers, carrying lossless audio from the source, not for vinyls. :) I listen vinyl not for the detail it provides.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I actually generally strongly prefer the quieter mix on vinyl, I also like vinyl for that certain... texture? it has. The only time I ever want a very high dynamic range is when I'm listening to orchestral music. Otherwise for casual listening, I prefer the quieter mix of an album intended for vinyl.
- Slow_Hand 4y ago
  In your fourth paragraph you refer to digital quantization, which I imagine is you referring to the idea of digital "stair steps" in the wave form's sampling. In reality that's not a thing that actually happens. This stair step visualization is an abstraction that is used to illustrate sampling theorem. The reality is that digital wave forms replicate as perfectly smooth waves when they are converted back to an analog signal, as demonstrated here: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml That said, I agree with all of your other points.
riceart 4y ago
What does any of this have to do with 192khz vs 48 and 24 bit vs 16 bit mastering and reproduction? You completely ignore everything relevant stated about the psychoacoustic performance of adults. > high-frequency hints Unless you’re 10 years old I’ll assume the upper frequency range of your hearing is no more than 22 kHz and that is pushing it. Hearing above 16 kHz becomes heavily attenuated in adulthood. When people talk high frequency they really mean stuff in the 2 to 6 kHz range. In any event 48 kHz sampling for reproduction/storage is beyond plenty. > Just a good amp, a pair of good speakers, and a well mastered album. That's all. And ignore room acoustics.. sure that doesn’t sell speakers and amps. It’s much easier to say use this expensive power cord which has no effect on anything then make people have to think about engineering.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  The interaction of harmonics and how it affects sound perception is a highly debated subject, but it’s same for every sense. Both eyes and ears have practical limits on what it hears, but even with that limits, brain can distinguish details so small, we have no ways to describe them. Some people will describe higher bitrate, higher sampling rate sound to be smoother, even if they can’t tell what is the difference. Similarly, some people will describe same higher bandwidth signal to be more airy or open. Hearing tests do not quantify these details. A solid example is Foo Fighters’ album, Wasting Light. Recorded and mastered on analog equipment, the album has sound qualities hard to describe. Yet it feels full, satisfying to listen, and doesn’t fatigue the ears. Maybe you can point a difference with a spectrogram, but the difference can be highlighted by your ears and brain in much more detailed manner. Another example is how people listen to higher bandwidth music. People are more engaged with higher quality, higher bandwidth sound. They concentrate for longer periods and listen more intently. Again, the brain can notice something or hearing tests can’t quantify. Lastly, people find images taken by cameras with Foveon sensors more appealing from color perspective, because the color resolution is much higher. While Bayer sensors’ color reproduction is both true and high resolution, brain can detect higher color resolution with ease. All senses are trained on real world over the decades, and know how to distinguish between real and fake. So, it’s no surprise that brain can detect things which we can’t put our finger on squarely. My rooms are not acoustically special. They are pretty standard, if not mundane. The equipment I use is high end, vintage stuff; but they are not exotics. Cabling is done per manuals of components. The only power conditioning I have is a surge protector which claims to have line noise filtering, but this is not why I got it. However, all the qualities I discussed here is audible on that set. The interesting part is, I’m using the same set for 30 years, and I know its sound character like my name. I can hear the same details and get the same atmosphere when I listen to the same albums (mostly CDs), so brain can reconstruct something we can’t describe from how sound interacts with both air and our ears. Lastly, I can still easily hear switch mode power supply noise, without even trying.