Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

I heard a big system recently for which the error correction function on the CD player was turned OFF. WOW. If only you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears. The trick is the CD surfaces have to be laboratory grade clean, otherwise the player shuts down.

optimize
I don’t think that the medium CD has done ANY development since it it were defined by Sony and Philips. A fun fact is that they defined the CD and its specifications. Then the CD manufacturer needed to manufacture a CD that meet the specifications. But the same went for the CD drive manufacturers they need to be able to read a CD that meet the specifications.

>>>>Uh, optimize, it’s not the CD that’s the problem, it’s the CD player that’s the problem. Hel-loo! There is an extraordinary amount of information on the CD. You just can’t hear it properly or completely because the CD players are all pieces of junk. Yes, I know what some of you are thinking, but my system sounds fabulous! I’ll spare DACs my wrath since by the time the audio signal gets to the DAC it’s too late! Hel-loo!

Wow! Did I just read that? Someone is suggesting that audiophiles start copying what teenagers listen to? OMG! Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! 😱

atdavid, it would appear, has bottomed out. 

It’s actually that young people have been used to the distortion and noise their entire lives. They don’t know the difference. 

I used to be on the NASA (Voice) network back in the 70s at Goddard Space Flight Center for launches at Kennedy. Trust me, the sound of voice was clear as a bell and clean as a whistle. Voice quality was required to be 5x5. Besides nobody with any sense listens to diyaudio. 10-4. 🧑🏻‍🚀

Well, shut ,my mouth and call me cornpone! I has no idea that there were audiophiles at NASA.

The reason why The Industry kept increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is largely due to the simple fact that stock off-the-shelf untreated Redbook CDs 💿 played on stock untreated CD players sounded thin, harsh, two dimensional, bland, irritating, flat, unemotional, unnatural, boomy, screechy, and like papier-mâché. These severe issues with sound quality were not (rpt not) helped much by increasing bit rate and sampling rate, unfortunately, for the reasons I list below, I.e., the SYSTEM wasn’t good enough.  For obvious reasons, the incessant releases of remastered CDs didn’t help much with sound quality either, I.e., Dynamic Range over-compression.

Let’s review the most prominent things that affect CD system sound quality, shall we? Room acoustics, power cords, vibration isolation, resonance control of the player, resonance control of the CD, aftermarket fuses, wire directionality 🔛 and reduction of scattered laser light interference. You could say it was the Tweakers vs The Industry.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. 🥚

The defense is being argumentative and badgering the witness. The prosecution rests. 

Gosh, atdavid just found that out AND is trying to make us believe he’s the only one who knows. To think, people accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel. The funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

You totally don’t get it. There are relatively few instances in over 100,000 entries where the dynamic range of the same issue of CD is higher than the vinyl issue. That’s just the way things are. You lose again. Einstein has the same affliction, arguing wrongly until he was blue in the face. 🥶 So you’re in good company. 😬

I never said vinyl was immune from over-compression. That’s putting words in my mouth I did not say. However, vinyl over the years has fared much better than digital. Just look at the data. Hel-loo!

Whack a mole! The sport of kings. I’m thankful for this opportunity to play Whack-a-mole, in the future there are no more audio forums.

Your analysis in incorrect. You cannot go by max dynamic range only because the max can occur very infrequently on a given album or even only once or one one track. That is precisely why the database provides minimum and average and maximum dynamic range. You would be much better off choosing average and/or minimum dynamic range if you wish to see how *overly compressed* a given album is. Thanks for playing along, anyway. Better luck next time.

atdavid
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering?

>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. Music is all about dynamics. Without dynamics you have elevator music.

Here is Abbey Road on the Dynamic Range Database to analyze 👀

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles&album=Abbey+Road

Hydrogen Audio? Don’t make me laugh! Ooops, too late! 😁 😁 😁

For those in my past who haven’t done so, I urge you to visit the unofficial dynamic range database and get eddicated.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Ten+years+after&album=

The parking the car analogy is actually not correct. The problem is not the original recording and it’s not the digital format. It’s the remastering or in some cases the original mastering that’s the problem. It’s the overly aggressive dynamic range compression that is the problem. They took what was originally a Cadillac and squashed it down to a VW.
Also I’m not sure I go along with somebody’s math which appears to say 144 dB is double the dynamic range of 70 dB. 

Apparently they still don’t teach good grammar back in the past. Nice try though. You can’t teach comedy. Comedy is subjective. I was born with perfect comedic timing.

We are probing the future generations. Unfortunately, but a lot of them have no real future. Too much time spent with noses in books. Not enough time in reality. I’m getting all choked up. 😢 Geez, even a cosmic wedgie won’t work.

I offered 25% simply as a sop to see if anyone would bite. Would you bite at 10%? Alas, I’m correct. I know I am, too. You can bark and scold til you’re blue in the face. 🥶 I’m from the future. I only come back here to see if anyone is getting smart. And for the jokes. My future, unfortunately, cannot be yours as you are hung up. None so blind that will not see.

When I say 50% of the information is missing what I mean by “information” is that dynamic range is doubled and resolution is increased considerably. I am not (rpt not) trying to say there is twice as much data available to the DAC as was on the CD 💿 Obviously, the data on the CD cannot be changed. But what can be changed is how the data is pulled off the CD. Yes, I know what you’re thinking - doesn’t Reed Solomon and the CD laser servo system take care of all the errors? 😳

We know, for example, the reason there IS a laser servo system in there in the first place is because the original designers were aware that the CD 💿 flops around while spinning, that the nanoscale laser beam cannot stay on the nanoscale data spiral without help. It helps but is not 100% effective. IT CANT KEEP UP. The laser beam is an out of control locomotive roaring down the track! 🚂 

So when you add up the increase in dynamic range, the increased bass performance, increased air and increased signal to noise ratio SNR you get 50%, if your system can handle it. And I’m being conservative here. Who wouldn’t want to DOUBLE Dynamic Range? It’s subjective. Put those books down! Use your ears. And yes, I know what a lot of people will say, “but my system already sounds fabulous!”

There is no substitute for signal to noise ratio.

Generally speaking, vinyl has almost always provided more dynamic range than digital. There are a number of reasons for that. One of course is the Loudness Wars (remastering) that have progressively sucked the life out of the music, mostly for CDs but also for SACD, BLU RAY, SHM-CD, SHM-Blu Ray and hi res streaming. To the point where you see dynamic ranges that look like a flatline on a very sick patient’s chart. Oh, well, I guess music industry executives have to eat, too.

The previous poster has a very good point. Putting overly compressed music on high density format discs is like shooting BBs with a 45.

Other reasons why dynamic range is relative poor on digital playback systems include - but are not limited to - ye olde scattered laser light interference, very low frequency and induced vibration and the self-inflicted flutter and vibration of the disc itself, as I’ve oft posted.

What a dork! Hey, good news! You have ESP. 😳

Prove it, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖Talk is cheap! 

porscheracer
No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don’t even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation.

>>>>That seems highly improbable since I haven’t been wrong since 1985. How about 20%? Let’s compromise. You seem like a nice guy.

atdavid
GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough. 

>>>>As is often you case with you your memory is either failing or you’re lying. Take your pick. I never refuted anything of the sort. Eat more fish! 🐟  🐟 

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason, Ethan. I’ve explained the nature of the problem many times. Is your memory shot or are you lying? It’s hard to tell which. You can’t follow the discussion on many threads. Maybe you need a vacation, Ethan.

I think I just figured out how to tell when atdavid is lying. His lips are moving. 😬 Most people are blissfully unaware there is a problem with stray laser light. It’s the biggest cruel joke the devil ever played on naive audiophiles. Much less what it sounds like or what to do about it. But I do.

https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Minimizing_Stray_Light_in_Everyday_Optical_Systems/a63577

porscheracer120 posts11-28-2019 4:19am

The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems.

I am sorry, but this is not at all correct. If what you said were true, you would getting muted sections of tracks all the time.

>>>>>>Actually, you do not get muted sections all the time. You don’t get muted sections any of the time. The scattered light problem produces distortion because the system substitutes null bits when it doesn’t know what else to do. That particular distortion disappears when scattered light is eliminated. You’re just used to hearing the distortion, that’s all. But it’s always been there. I’m not saying scattered light is the only problem with CD playback.

Also, it would be impossible to get accurate rips from CDs using software like dBpoweramp with AccurateRip. Finally, accurate rips would sound phenomenally better than what you could get from a CD transport. While often do sound better, there are other reasons for this other than this alleged 50% missing data.

>>>>>>I did not say scattered light was the only problem, remember? So, would you accept that 25% of the data is missing? This is all system dependent and listener dependent. I can guarantee you will hear what I do. But if only you could hear what I hear with my ears.

CD transports are inherently accurate. If they were not, it would be impossible to read text data from a CD drive in or attached to your computer with any reliability.

>>>>>See, that’s my point? They’re not inherently accurate! They are ALL susceptible to seismic vibration, internal vibration, scattered light interference, vibration of the CD itself. The computer analogy is not correct. The CD player is not like a computer. That is the oldest false argument in the world. You were fooled into a false sense of security by the marketing team at Philips and SONY - “Perfect Sound Forever!”

Please keep your rooting to yourself. 🐷

One assumes you meant intellectual property. Probably a Freudian slip.

et tu, Brute? 😢

Wow, how clever! Your ad hominems are not much better than your technical posts. 

By the way, the more you post the more I’m convinced you never went to school. Nobody could get out of EE and be that dense, could they? Keep slugging away, maybe you will be somebody some day. 

atdavid
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies.

>>>>>Emphasis on “to my knowledge.” Never is a very long time. Nevertheless, I think you would have been more convincing if you had said, “never ever ever.”

That sounds so authoritative you almost made me think it’s true. 🤗

tomcy6
Geoff, If the problem was lasers and optical discs, wouldn’t downloads and streamed music sound obviously better than CDs and SACDs?

>>>>Good question. I don’t know. I am only addressing CD players.

That reminds me. I have a bunch of the Abkco 2002 DSD Rolling Stones CDs. Are they really DSD mastering or something else? They do sound very good, I’ll say that.

OK here are the 3 big problems I see 👀 regardless of what format the disc is. Two of the problems involve vibration - structure-borne vibration, acoustic and other mechanical vibration (motors, CD transport, transformers, etc.), and vibration of the disc itself (!) whilst spinning, preventing the laser from staying on the nanoscale spiral track.

The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems. It’s no wonder differences among the various formats is oft indistinguishable. The systems aren’t resolving enough. Hel-loo!!

CD sound quality is relatively independent of bit rate and sampling rate. For starters you’re not even getting 50% of what’s on the CD anyway. There are too many serious issues with CD Player performance, after all these years. The CDs themselves are great. Increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is kind of a scam to get more money. Not unlike overly compressing CDs. It’s all orchestrated so they can stay in business. Hel-loo!