Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC

To talk about the jitter issue we evoked before, I’ve read an article about a Wadia digital ensemble where it’s about jitter on DRIVE, which is due to a desynchronisation of the clock, with the data sream.
This clock is located in the servo control of the drive.
So this”jitter” phenomenon happens in the drive.
It explains why my drive Sonic Frontiers is considered to have one of the lowest jitter rate of the market.
This is what is said in the extract i posted before.
There are two kinds of jitter: the converter’s one, and the drive’s one.


Wadia 850, featuring Teac modified mechanic

True that the human hear is limited to 20 khz and less as people loose auditive acuity (espially when you listen loud!). But supersonic noise is hear somehow and adds harshness! the proof is trhat when you record a CD on a tapedeck limited to 17khz, it's much smoother in the highs as the upper freq are filtered.
I think we have not much acuity above 20khz, but enough to suffer from supersonic noise.

Yes, in theory SACD is better as it has higher resolution. it's not the case for the moment but it will come maybe later.

A good thing that works is the HDCD filter:

"High Definition Compatible Digital (HDCD) is a patented encode/decode process for delivering the full richness and detail of the original microphone feed on compact discs (CDs) and DVD-Audio. HDCD has been used in the recording of more than 5,000 CD titles, which include more than 250 Billboard Top 200 recordings and more than 175 GRAMMY nominations, and account for more than 300 million CDs sold.

HDCD-encoded CDs sound better because they are encoded with 20 bits of real musical information, as compared with 16 bits for all other CDs. HDCD overcomes the limitation of the 16-bit CD format by using a sophisticated system to encode the additional 4 bits onto the CD while remaining completely compatible with the existing CD format. HDCD provides more dynamic range, a more-focused 3-D soundstage, and extremely natural vocal and musical timbre. With HDCD, you get the body, depth, and emotion of the original performance—not a flat digital imitation.

HDCD-encoded recordings sound better on all digital player products because HDCD subtractive, dither A/D conversion and dynamic-filter processes yield a higher resolution signal with lower distortion. For HDCD CD releases, Peak Extend restorable soft limiting can increase resolution by allowing signal levels to be raised by up to 6 dB; Low Level Extend can improve resolution of low-level signals; and HDCD high-frequency dither improves resolution by 6 dB (one bit). HDCD-equipped players improve the sound of all digital recordings because HDCD decoding includes the HDCD precision up-sampling digital filter."

Just to say that analog can go further than digital on the performance level.

Aida Loth-X


Microseiki

MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: True that the human hear is limited to 20 khz and less as people loose auditive acuity (espially when you listen loud!). But supersonic noise is hear somehow and adds harshness! the proof is trhat when you record a CD on a tapedeck limited to 17khz, it's much smoother in the highs as the upper freq are filtered. I think we have not much acuity above 20khz, but enough to suffer from supersonic noise. Then why did you praise the 30khz analog equipment, and bash the CD for being "inferior" with its 22.05khz?

OK, but anyway, it goes far but there's still the supersonic noise which ruins the sound. (and the problem stays with SACD/24 bits resolution).
It will always be under analog...

Yes! but unfortunatly this is not the only problem of digital.
The big problem is that when you numerize the signal, you simplifies it (the higher the resolution, the less you simplify)but there will be always info missing.
The ear and the human brain are too sensitive and have to "reconstitute" the missing info. What's make digital to involve fatigue.

When you switch from digital to analog on a big system, you say "ahhhh..." (relief whisper)

oliverstoned wrote: Yes! but unfortunatly this is not the only problem of digital. The big problem is that when you numerize the signal, you simplifies it (the higher the resolution, the less you simplify)but there will be always info missing. The ear and the human brain are too sensitive and have to "reconstitute" the missing info. What's make digital to involve fatigue. When you switch from digital to analog on a big system, you say "ahhhh..." (relief whisper)

I think that when using 24bit resolution there's a huge safety margin ... I'm sure that the resolution of the human ear is significantly lower. Why? Well, listen for yourself.

As far as the frequency is concerned, there can be no doubt that 22khz is enough by any definition.

 

And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital.

Reag planar 3
A very cheap turntable, which can beat big digital, if you put a good moving coil on it:

oliverstoned wrote: And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital.

Yes, a higher resolution than your ear can cope with solves the problem in theory AND real life. The only question is how high the resolution of the human ear really is.

Why are you always saying these things like they were approved scientific concepts?

...That's why i said the problem is inherent to digital, whatever the technology (24 bits) used.