Thread: Audite

Posts: 22
Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Post by Fugue May 7, 2015 (11 of 22)
wehecht said:

I suggest that anyone who's convinced of this needs to listen to the concerto on BIS' new Martinu disc recorded in the Barbican at 24/48 and compare it to any randomly selected pure dsd disc from LSO Live that was recorded in the same venue.

Well of course there are other elements such as mic type, placement, EQ--an endless array of options available to the engineers that can dramatically affect the sound. I just think with all other elements being equal, a higher sampling rate sounds better.

Post by steviev May 7, 2015 (12 of 22)
Fugue said:

I find the 48kz to be more of a limiting sonic quality than the bit rate.

Per Mark Waldrep, almost all DACs in existence process audio at 44/16 or 48/16, except for high-end gear like the Oppo 105.

Post by krisjan May 7, 2015 (13 of 22)
Fugue said:

That's what keeps many SACDs from sounding significantly better than RBCDs in my opinion--they need a higher sampling rate, such as DSD provides, to truly sound better. All of my pure DSDs have considerably warmer string tone than do most RBCDs. The difference is a little less noticeable on my Eosteric player since it up-samples, but still, in general, the pure DSD discs sound better to my ears.

You are conflating several factors and thereby confusing the issue. First, we aren't discussing DSD vs PCM - Audite has never (to my knowledge) recorded anything in native DSD. I, too, agree that the best hi-rez recordings I have are DSD masters. Secondly, you keep bringing up RBCD as a comparator - but RBCD is 16/44 and is significantly lower resolution than 24/48 (which I consider "hi-rez"). Thirdly, the issue with Audite is all hi-rez PCM related - 24/48 versus 24/88 or 24/96. IMO, the difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz (at the same 24 bit rate) is inconsequential. YMMV.

Post by Fugue May 7, 2015 (14 of 22)
I actually buy very few SACDs anymore because most don't sound that much better to me than do well-recorded RBCDs since the non-DSD recordings have similar sampling rates, plus the performances are often inferior to older recordings. So, it really isn't worth continuing this debate, but I'll say just one thing more: To my ears, 48k is very little better than 44k, so as far as that goes, it still sounds like an RBCD to me. Sure, 24 bit is better than 16 as far as dynamic range goes, but it doesn't seem to affect the richness and realism of instruments as much as does the sampling rate IMO. If you don't agree, then great--let's get on with our lives and enjoy some music.

Post by Fugue May 7, 2015 (15 of 22)
duplicate

Post by Chris May 7, 2015 (16 of 22)
Fugue said:

I actually buy very few SACDs anymore because most don't sound that much better to me than do well-recorded RBCDs since the non-DSD recordings have similar sampling rates, plus the performances are often inferior to older recordings. So, it really isn't worth continuing this debate, but I'll say just one thing more: To my ears, 48k is very little better than 44k, so as far as that goes, it still sounds like an RBCD to me. Sure, 24 bit is better than 16 as far as dynamic range goes, but it doesn't seem to affect the richness and realism of instruments as much as does the sampling rate IMO. If you don't agree, then great--let's get on with our lives and enjoy some music.

It seems I kickstarted a new discussion on an old topic with my post again.
I would put it this way: 24/44.1 or 24/48 is good enough for most listeners on this site obviously.
Either they have not had a chance of actually comparing on "everything else being equal terms",or their systems are simpy not resolving enough to hear the differences that imho can be heard and are to the benefit of higher sampling rates with pcm recordings. It is is my experience that with everything else being equal the higher the sampling rate the better and the more realistic the sound seems to be in most cases.
I have yet to hear a 24/44.1 or 24/48 that doesn't sound less real under such conditions.
Regarding bits or sampling rates I know at least one pro,Morten of 2L who thinks,unless he has changed his mind recently,that sampling rates do matter,and both can and do influence perceived SQ.
He has even said that he could live with 20 bits but not lower sampling rates.

And judging by the recent developments with double DSD Quad DSD and even octa rate DSD around the corner, from the still limited samples available , DSD 64 might not be the closest approach to the real thing many SACD believers think it is.
Already before the launch of SACD there where units working at DSD 256, but the data couldn't be fitted onto disc in those days so DSD 64 was chosen for practical reasons instead of the best possible available converters.
For those who can do the comparisons there are a couple of files available just as Morten lets anyone hear from themselves all the way from DXD down to 24/48 with some of his masters.
Then again even DXD nor DSD at higher sampling rates are still not even close to the real thing with large scale orchestral or operatic music.
I am off to hear the two hottest HI FI demo works live tonight and already before hearing them I know no HI fI no matter how highly resolving or expensive can create more than an illusion of the real thing.

Post by AmonRa May 8, 2015 (17 of 22)
Fugue said:

-they need a higher sampling rate, such as DSD provides, etc etc

It is the confusion of terminology I protest here. Bit rate is not a specific enough term to be used in the context of audio recording quality.

sample rate: how many samples per second are taken from the signal.
sample depth: how accurately each sample is measured.
bit rate: how many bits of data the data stream contains per second.

Bit rate has NO direct bearing on the quality of the signal, because it is affected by sampling method (DSD or PCM) and possible lossy or lossless data compression methods.

So please do not use "bit rate" do describe audio qualities anymore!

Post by AmonRa May 8, 2015 (18 of 22)
Chris said:

Then again even DXD nor DSD at higher sampling rates are still not even close to the real thing with large scale orchestral or operatic music.

I personally believe that modern digital recording methods are transparent enough that they could not be noticed in a blind test comparing live analog feed and digitally recorded signal. Even 16/44.1 is good enough, except that the system noise can be heard in extremely good listening situations.

I think the reason why recorded signal can not compare to the real thing has more to do with the speakers, speaker placement and listening room acoustics rather than the quality of the captured signal. Construction of a private, acoustically relatively dead listening concert hall is something only few could afford.

Post by Celebidache2000 May 8, 2015 (19 of 22)
Getting back to the original topic...it would be a shame if Audite stopped releasing SACDs, as they have produced many fine ones.

I don't see myself switching to downloads any time soon. I still purchase discs.

Post by Lute May 8, 2015 (20 of 22)
Celebidache2000 said:

Getting back to the original topic...it would be a shame if Audite stopped releasing SACDs, as they have produced many fine ones.

+1

Recently I have been listening to Polychoral Splendour from the four galleries of the Abbey Church of Muri and other wonderful recordings by Audite.

Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Closed