resolution question

[robby_456]

Nothing sounds like reel to reel. Why restrict yourself to only one format? You will find some things in one format and some things in another format. Give yourself the capability of playing as many formats as possible. You won't regret it.

FWIW: I can play
LP
CD
HDCD
SACD
DVD-A
Cassette
(shortly) Blu-Ray
contemplating Reel to Reel

I was actually striving for sonc conformity in the system I am attempting to put together. I guess I never really considered having multiple fornmats that purposley have different sonic signatures. Regardless whether I go with a turntablee or not, I am still going to have a digital player because I enjoy watching classical music concerts on DVD video. Unless the videocassette rises from the dead like reel to reel. Back in the days of the videocassette there were a number of people that did audiophile mods on VCR's. A well recorded videocassette played on a modded VCR actually sounds quite good. Much better than cassette but not as good as reel to reel.

[Jim Leach]

I personally got out of multiple formats hoping to reduce my system to the bare essentials for CD playback. I thought it would be nice and clean to have a very minimalist system.

And I regretted it.

Now I can play CD, Vinyl, Cassette and open reel tape. I actually use CD most of the time (plus my Wife finds it easier, but she is not intimidated by Vinyl) and Vinyl. I have a bunch of overpriced gear to convert cassettes to CD, as those are all over 20 years old now and getting a bit rough.

With the cost of old analogue equipment these days (all the "smart" people are going to music servers ) you can have a full rack of perfectly fine equipment for very little money.

[davidsrsb]

I did not know HDCD was 20 bit and I mistakingly thought that SACD was 24 bit which is what I was referring to in my previuos post. Can a person hear the difference in resolution between an LP and HDCD using a turntable including an RIAA and a HDCD player in the $5,000 price range?

HDCD is still true redbook, encoding a dynamic range extension by an in band control using a small percentage of the LSBs. This probably gives a 6dB or 1 bit range increase so we have effectively 17 bit.

I have looked at the spectrum of hdcd encoded cds direct and with software decoding and there is a significant difference

[robby_456]

Nothing sounds like reel to reel. Why restrict yourself to only one format? You will find some things in one format and some things in another format. Give yourself the capability of playing as many formats as possible. You won't regret it.

FWIW: I can play
LP
CD
HDCD
SACD
DVD-A
Cassette
(shortly) Blu-Ray
contemplating Reel to Reel

I was actually striving for sonc conformity in the system I am attempting to put together. I guess I never really considered having multiple fornmats for the purpose of having different sonic signatures for playback. Regardless whether I go with a turntablee or not, I am still going to have a digital player because I enjoy watching classical music concerts on DVD video. Unless the videocassette rises from the dead like reel to reel. Back in the days of the videocassette there were a number of people that did audiophile mods on VCR's. A well recorded videocassette played on a modded VCR actually sounds quite good, much better than cassette but not as good as reel to reel.

[cats squirrel]

When you get some digital ears we'll figure it out.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The number of bits comes into play only when recording something in a digital format. Your ears are not digital.

I understand the human ear is not a digital device but there is such a thing a resolution equivalent that can be determined in bits. An example is LP's have an equivalent of about 12 bits of resolution even though LP's are not a digital format.

I think you are talking about bit depth. 'By increasing the sampling bit depth, quantization noise is reduced so that the S/N is improved. The 'rule-of-thumb' relationship between bit depth and S/N is, for each 1-bit increase in bit depth, the S/N will increase by 6 dB. 24-bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum S/N of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16-bit; however, to date, digital audio converter technology is limited to a S/N of about 124 dB (21-bit) because of real world limitations in integrated circuit design. Still, this approximately matches the performance of the human ear.'

[dlaloum]

The ear simply doesn't hear in a way that simply maps to "bits" at some frequencies we have wider S/N ratio than 16bit (and probably 24bit)...

At other frequencies 12 bits more than represents our hearing capabilities.

There are some articles out there on how we sense audio and how we then perceive what we sense - it is not simple... and it does not simply correlate to audio specifications.

On the other hand there is some correlation between improved specifications and improved perceived sound.... the devil is always in the detail!

[Ldg]

The ear simply doesn't hear in a way that simply maps to "bits" at some frequencies we have wider S/N ratio than 16bit (and probably 24bit)...

Yes, even if it's true that dynamic range can't be captured in 16 bits, that's a very different proposition from being able to perceive level differences associated with least significant bit resolution. Which is inaudible, at any level, and at any frequency.

[Werner]

at some frequencies we have wider S/N ratio than 16bit (and probably 24bit)...

24 bit?

Nope.

1) the ear is just as subject to physical noise floors (thermal, blood turbulence, ...) as any other device or transducer

2) you don't want to be exposed to 144dB above zero level. Ever.

[LousyTourist]

A real audiophile has at least three distinct sources. I have a TT, a universal player, a tuner, and a cassette deck. Any late model universal player with a modern DAC chipset will suffice for digital source, IMHO. There is a high knee curve in the digital world.

Restricting yourself to such a thought experiment is a pleasant distraction, but serves no real purpose. You probably already know what you want, so forge your own path and enjoy the ride!

You'll soon find that the mastering of the source is the true limiting factor. You'll find rubbish recorded on the 'finest' format and sonic gems on the worst.

[aardvarkash10]

The ear is not linear in its perception of sound - it has a range of differing responses to the "steps" between frequency, volume and timbre.

Moreover, your ear is different to mine, and yours in the morning is different to yours in the afternoon.

There ain't no red book for human hearing.

[Werner]

Sure. But we do know most of its limits and capabilities.

[aardvarkash10]

apparently not. We regularly see claims here that require belief in hearing ability that is in the realms of superpowers.

The ear is a crude device set up to ensure we eat and don't get eaten. It is connected to a brain that is unreliable in its perception of frequency, timbre and volume, and relies on a memory system that typically is 50% or more incorrect in its recollections within 20 minutes of an event - a memory system we rely on to make assessments of differences in the sounds we hear...

If by "we do know" you refer to the various sciences that study the subject, yeah. But the wider "we" has little if any understanding of how fallible our hearing is, and worse, some are self deluding about the ability they have.

[jorgelopez11]

I concur with aardvarkash.

Most audiophiles tend to think human beings hearing capabilities are better than they actually are. In fact the human perception of sound is not reliable at all.

But regarding the OP question, IMO there's no point in limiting ourselves to a single format. The limited availability of great recordings should suffice to adhere to a universal approach to formats and media.

I enjoy my CDs, SACDs, vinyls and find very convenient to listen to compressed FLACs for casual everyday listening.

I don't share the view that vinyls sound better than digital music. The differences are related to the recording/mastering process. Most vinyls sound better for this very reason, but there are vinyls that are no match for their digital counterparts, particularly HDCDs.

[Whitneyville]

Consider that the U.S Navy for their spy submarines (the best duty in the fleet) get the best SONAR operators in the world. These people have the best hearing of 1 in 300 MILLION people on Earth, so there are no more than 9000 people alive with better hearing than them. They have the world's finest sound system wrapped around them...but they can't drink caffinated drinks or smoke while on duty because it affects their hearing! They have special diets too. According to the Congressional Budget Office, their headphones cost at least $150,000 a pair and are custom made for each operator. To quote one of the operators on a Public Broadcasting Special, "We can hear a fish f*rt 200 km away." I know a retired operator, and his "second career" was with an auto-maker, listening for the sound a door makes when it closes (it must sound "solid" but not "slam") or to the exhaust sound (must sound "powerful" but not "noisy").