ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
I've decided to add an Auralic Aries (the original model with the dual Femto clocks; not the LE, Mini, G1 or G2) to my system to enable streaming and make file playback easier. I've ordered an optical cable from Steve at Sounds Heavenly to connect it, but on checking the Technical Sound Guide for my BeoLab 90s, realised I'd got it the wrong way round – it's the S/PDIF input that supports 192/24, whereas optical only supports 96/24. This completely defeats the point of connecting the Auralic Aries, which is designed to play high-res files.
I could connect the Aries via USB-Audio, but I recall Geoff Martin writing on here that a firmware update had changed its behaviour, meaning that it would no longer play 44.1/16 files via the BeoLab 90s. However, if I use the S/PDIF input for the Auralic Aries, how will I digitally connect my CD player (a Beogram CD 5500, which currently uses that input)?
.
Present: BL90, Core, BL6000, CD7000, Beogram 7000, Essence Remote.
Past: BL1, BL2, BL8000, BS9000, BL5, BC2, BS5, BV5, BV4-50, Beosystem 3, BL3, DVD1, Beoremote 4, Moment.
Thanks for the input. Apparently the Auralic Aries worked fine via USB until a firmware update removed its ability to instruct the BL90 to process 44.1/16 inputs via that format. I suspect there isn't a huge difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but since the Aries is designed to handle the former it seems silly to use an input that won't go above 96/24.
Doesn't the Auralic also have a coax digital out? Is there some limitation on its output that would keep you from using it or is it that the BL90 doesn't have a coax input?
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
The Aries does indeed have a coax (S/PDIF) output and the BL90 has a coax input, which can handle 192/24. The issue is that the coax input is currently being used by my CD player (Beogram CD 5500), so the question is how to connect that if the Aries takes over the coax. I want a digital connection for superior CD sound, but the 5500 doesn't have an optical output, and hence can't use the optical input on the BL90.
How much do you play CDs? I ripped all mine, lossless, and store them on a SSD inside my Auralic Mini and never touch discs.
I play CDs almost daily, and don't have the time or inclination to rip all of my 10,000-odd CDs, so removing the digital connection from the CD 5500 isn't really an option. I need a solution where I can play both 192/24 and 44.1/16 files via the Aries whilst still having a digital CD input. Is it possible to connect the Aries via both optical and USB-Audio simultaneously, using the former for 44.1/16 and the latter for 192/24 files?
Hi politician,
Thanks for your cable purchase, which is on its way to you. I have emailed you directly with a full reply, suggesting trying the optical output of the Aries at 96/24 as this should be indistinguishable from the 192/24 output in real world use. If this give a good quality output then it keeps the S/PDIF connection on the speakers free for your Beogram CD, without needing any external convertors which could impact on the sound quality.
Please let me know how you get on and I will be pleased to assist further.
Kind regards, Steve.
Steve.
www.soundsheavenly.com
Founder of Sounds Heavenly Cables and Brand Ambassador for Bang & Olufsen
Sounds Heavenly are proud to sponsor BeoWorld!
Please check out my YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/soundsheavenlycables
Thanks Steve! As I mentioned in my email, I'm also going to see what happens if I connect it via both USB-Audio and optical – the Aries may be able to select the most appropriate output for each file format.
Could something like this work?
https://www.ramelectronics.net/280565.aspx
Take the coax out of the Auralic and convert it to optical?
politician:I've decided to add an Auralic Aries (the original model with the dual Femto clocks; not the LE, Mini, G1 or G2) to my system to enable streaming and make file playback easier. I've ordered an optical cable from Steve at Sounds Heavenly to connect it, but on checking the Technical Sound Guide for my BeoLab 90s, realised I'd got it the wrong way round – it's the S/PDIF input that supports 192/24, whereas optical only supports 96/24. This completely defeats the point of connecting the Auralic Aries, which is designed to play high-res files. I could connect the Aries via USB-Audio, but I recall Geoff Martin writing on here that a firmware update had changed its behaviour, meaning that it would no longer play 44.1/16 files via the BeoLab 90s. However, if I use the S/PDIF input for the Auralic Aries, how will I digitally connect my CD player (a Beogram CD 5500, which currently uses that input)?
I think the Auralic not only offers more in the way of things it will do (internal drive of files, etc.) I know that even their lowly Mini is reliable and has bullet proof wifi. Given B&O's performance with wireless lately I would trust the Auralic much more, and if you're going to have something of the magnitude of BL90s, having a SOTA digital suite isn't a bad idea, if only for bragging rights and to make sure you feel comfortable about it.
I agree with you about the inaudibility of most of the digital hoopla though.
@Jeff:
I don't think that would solve the problem, as it's the BL90s' optical input that can't handle 192/24, not the Auralic itself or the cable. My dealer and I were chatting about this today, and think the solution might be some kind of splitter for the S/PDIF input, so long as it doesn't degrade the sound.
@seethroughyou:
I'll let you know whether the Auralic outperforms my MacBook when I've hooked it up tomorrow and tried out out via S/PDIF, optical and USB-Audio. Certainly, I was surprised when I ripped a CD to my MacBook and played it directly via AIFF into the BL90 – it was slightly inferior to playing the original CD, even though conventional wisdom suggested it should sound better,
I can certainly hear a difference between a CD player connected to the speakers via digital or analogue, with digital being significantly superior. I can also hear clear differences between different B&O CD players used as transports, even though they're merely outputting 0s and 1s: my Beogram CD 5500 (very similar to your Beogram CD 7000, but with a slightly superior brushless spindle motor) outperformed my BeoSound 9000. I was of the "bits are bits": persuasion until I tried it myself. and now I realise that jitter can affect musical performance.
Actually, the piece of kit you suggested could indeed solve the problem – I could use it for my CD transport, which is presumably what you were suggesting. I was a bit slow on the uptake there! Will report back tomorrow when I’ve tried the Aries out via the different connections.
politician: @seethroughyou: I'll let you know whether the Auralic outperforms my MacBook when I've hooked it up tomorrow and tried out out via S/PDIF, optical and USB-Audio. Certainly, I was surprised when I ripped a CD to my MacBook and played it directly via AIFF into the BL90 – it was slightly inferior to playing the original CD, even though conventional wisdom suggested it should sound better,
Just some disposable comments here.
1. USB MacBook is incredibly noisy. A box of tricks is required to clean-up that signal (5V trace) when going into the 90s. Think PS Audio Landrover or similar divices. Electronic noise is the new digital evil!!
2. Im going down the route (shortly) of the Auralic Aries or Vega G2/Leo (clock). I need to test them progressively to see where the optimum cost/benefit is. A lot of third party gear is difficult to control (with the 90s) and getting a killer app is not as common as you may think it is when looking at B&Os offerings.
3. My Oppo 105D with SPDif trounces the BL90/BV combo (analogue powerlink) when playing music of my network and my overall perception is that B&O are going backward in terms of Audio Systems - not because of black plastic boxes - all in favour of that but because their current offerings are reminiscent of the old BeoSound 2/6. Like when 1Gb storage was a 2 year-old out-of-date standard and the new iPod did 16Gb lossless flac and gapless. B&O have to be competitive to sell even if telling the difference is now difficult between sound qualities.
politician: @Jeff: Actually, the piece of kit you suggested could indeed solve the problem – I could use it for my CD transport, which is presumably what you were suggesting. I was a bit slow on the uptake there! Will report back tomorrow when I’ve tried the Aries out via the different connections.
Actually, I misread your original post(s) point and hadn't realized that the optical input on the BL90 was the issue, but since the device works either way, optical to coax or vice versa, it should work. One thing, you know your CD player will always be outputting only one bit rate.
You must have a massive CD library. Mine is not nearly as large but I've found it's large enough that before I ripped things I spent more time looking for a particular disc than I did playing music! Since I've ripped it all to the HD I can actually find things thanks to the search functions and such built into the Auralic app (or any other music app). Granted the cover art situation is not perfect and I've not had the patience to scan in manually what isn't there in the online library to download, but still it works for me.
Some comments to clear up some misunderstandings here...
Cheers-geoff
Thanks Geoff! I can always rely on you for good information.
Today, I hooked up the Aries via S/PDIF, USB-Audio and optical. All sampling rates worked on the first two, whilst optical couldn't process 192/24. Interestingly, I thought the sound was slightly better via USB-Audio, so will be using that (especially as I doubt I will be playing DSD through the Aries).
I didn't have a chance to do a back-to-back comparison between the Auralic Aries and my CD player (Beogram CD 5500), HDCD/SACD player (Cambridge CXU) or MacBook. However, I did try out all three connections for the Auralic Aries, and as I mentioned in my last post, USB-Audio sounded best.
Playing the 192/24 HDtracks download of the Grateful Dead's Terrapin Station, I thought it sounded excellent, though it didn't blow me away in comparison to the HDCD. A back-to-back comparison with the HDCD should produce a winner by some small margin.
Geoff Martin: In fact, I rarely assume that a digital output of any device can be trusted these days - mostly due to sampling rate conversion and poor clock recovery strategies. You can certainly not assume that two devices playing the same file out of digital outputs will produce identical results - nor can you assume that the differences will be audible or not. You should also not assume that the one that measures better will sound better - since this depends on what's "downstream" and how that signal is treated. Cheers-geoff
This reminds me, that I am looking forward to the results of the survey/test, that Archimago started a while ago.
The test runs untill the end of April.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/01/internet-blind-test-do-digital-audio.html
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
politician: Playing the 192/24 HDtracks download of the Grateful Dead's Terrapin Station, I thought it sounded excellent, though it didn't blow me away in comparison to the HDCD. A back-to-back comparison with the HDCD should produce a winner by some small margin.
Terrapin Station is a 1977 production. There is no way, that this can contain informations that might justify a sample rate of 192.
(and who would be able to hear this anyway).
Offering an old recording in 24 bits is out of the world - there is no way that the S/N ratio could be that high with an analog taped resource.
HDTracks also does not supply any provenance information, when the sell this file.
The only ‘high resolution’ with this overpriced offer probably is the cover picture.
Nice track/album, none the less....Greatful Dead is always a joy to listen to.
Yes, HD Tracks certainly have an odd set of offerings – lots of old-school "classic rock" stuff, some of it at very high prices (since they appear to charge by the track, meaning that albums with larger numbers of shorter songs sell for more). I purchased "Terrapin Station" and Fleetwood Mac's "Future Games" as I love both albums and they were fairly cheap; besides which, some of the people who worked on recording the former claimed that the HD Tracks version was the best ever released,
politician:some of the people who worked on recording the former claimed that the HD Tracks version was the best ever released,
This may be a consequence of a different mastering, and not the 24-bit distribution format. I don't know if this is the case - but it's a very likely explanation.
Geoff Martin: politician:some of the people who worked on recording the former claimed that the HD Tracks version was the best ever released, This may be a consequence of a different mastering, and not the 24-bit distribution format. I don't know if this is the case - but it's a very likely explanation. Cheers-geoff
This has been problematic since the days of SACD and makes any user determination of the "quality" of high def vs. regular CD about impossible to determine sadly. Back in the Sony SACD days, the discs had dual layers, regular CD and SACD, presented at different levels naturally that made direct comparison difficult. I remember when various discs were analyzed in detail many were found to be remastered for the SACD version, no wonder they sounded "better" or at least different. Mastering matters a lot more than bit depth/sampling rate, especially when talking about old master tapes.
I can understand how recording with more bit depth makes life easier for recording, more room for peaks, less likelihood of screwing up recording levels as there's more room for error. But when transferring a tape, you can play it and know beforehand how wide it's dynamic range is, where the peaks are, so you know beforehand where to set levels so you don't exceed your limits. An interesting difference between recording live artists and transferring tapes from one format to another.
The chins have it...
Geoff Martin:This may be a consequence of a different mastering, and not the 24-bit distribution format. I don't know if this is the case - but it's a very likely explanation. Cheers-geoff
Very likely, Geoff – it's apparently a flat transfer from the master tape.
politician: Geoff Martin:This may be a consequence of a different mastering, and not the 24-bit distribution format. I don't know if this is the case - but it's a very likely explanation. Cheers-geoff Very likely, Geoff – it's apparently a flat transfer from the master tape.
‘apparently’ is not good enough for me.
If I buy something (here: a file) from someone, who claims that it is ‘high quality’, I’d expect him to be able to document that it is so (the provenance aspect).
In this case HDTracks makes no comments on where they have sourced the material.
It is very rare that a distributor can get hold on the original master tapes in order to transfer these.....and after all HDTracks is just a reseller.
There are very (very, very) few recordings that can boast of being ‘a 192/24 recording’ if we consider the whole production chain starting with the microphones used.
In case of a flat transfer we would most likely hear some tapehiss etc there - no mastering engineer would be proud of that.
Anyway - for a flat transfer of old master tapes a CD-spec, 16/44.1 container would be all that is needed.
Coming back to your initial posting:
’whereas optical only supports 96/24. This completely defeats the point of connecting the Auralic Aries, which is designed to play high-res files.’
Millemissen:‘apparently’ is not good enough for me.
By "apparently", I mean I read an interview with someone involved in the recording of the original LP who stated that the HDtracks version was a flat transfer; he also stated that it was the best-sounding version of the album having heard the original LP and the two different CDs masterings. I used the word "apparently" as I obviously cannot confirm this information for myself.
Millemissen:‘There is no reason not to use the optical input of the 90’s, if that is the free one.
Ultimately, there were two reasons not to use it: optical won't support 192/24 files and the music sounded better via USB-Audio (using a much cheaper cable). As a result, USB-Audio is what we went for, and we used the optical input for something else.
politician: As a result, USB-Audio is what we went for, and we used the optical input for something else.
As a result, USB-Audio is what we went for, and we used the optical input for something else.
That’s fine, I think.
Have fun with listening to the 90’s.....you lucky guy 👍
politician:By "apparently", I mean I read an interview with someone involved in the recording of the original LP who stated that the HDtracks version was a flat transfer; he also stated that it was the best-sounding version of the album having heard the original LP and the two different CDs masterings. I used the word "apparently" as I obviously cannot confirm this information for myself. Ultimately, there were two reasons not to use it: optical won't support 192/24 files and the music sounded better via USB-Audio (using a much cheaper cable). As a result, USB-Audio is what we went for, and we used the optical input for something else.
Millemissen:Anyway - for a flat transfer of old master tapes a CD-spec, 16/44.1 container would be all that is needed.
A bold statement like that raises the question,- do you have any idea what the specs of e.g a Studer A800 was?
Or was it merely your personal opinion?
BEOVOX141: Millemissen:Anyway - for a flat transfer of old master tapes a CD-spec, 16/44.1 container would be all that is needed. A bold statement like that raises the question,- do you have any idea what the specs of e.g a Studer A800 was? Or was it merely your personal opinion?
Sure, I know the specs.
If anyone should not trust me - feel free to read these specs:
https://usermanual.wiki/Document/Studera800MK3.3754329916.pdf
Just scroll down a bit.
AND - we are talking about a delievery system for audio.
Hardly anyone has a Studer machine at home - and you would hardly get a copy from the master tapes to play back there.
A lot of musicians, recording and mastering engineers swear on an analog (tape) part in the production chain.
They like the colouration, that e.g. a Studer machine gives them, compared to a full digital chain (some achieve this through plugins with the digital chain) - that is part of a choice for the ‘sound’ that they want to give a project. It is rather common for musicians to use tubeamp as part of their amplification to acchieve a ‘certain’ sound.....this mysterious ‘analog sound’.
The 16/44.1 container (also used for CD’s) can easily cover that.....when we are talking delievery to the costumer.
(For production purposes noone uses 16/44.1 anymore - it is very common to use 24/96 for the digital part of the recording process).
For further readings on this subject:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1598
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=468
This is one of those earth shattering occasions where MM and I are in agreement. It's amazing to me that the Revox has such a sonic signature that there are digital plug-ins to mimic it. Plus, regardless of what analog tape technology you use(d), even today the limiting factor is as much or more the microphones used. Even expensive studio quality mics do not have freq response much above 20k if at all. I'm sure someone can find a mic claiming to go higher, but how often are they used, and they certainly were not used in the 1970's. Back when CD was first introduced I remember one audiophile magazine doing testing between standard CD format and master tapes, and they were disappointed (go figure that one out) that CD sounded identical to the tapes. Could sound, not always did, but a properly mastered one not playing the loudness game.
I can easily see the need for increased bit depth in the studio, 24 bits gives you much more leeway while recording. On analog tape machines if you exceed 0 VU the distortion increases and freq response drops, but it's not a catastrophic problem as in digital when you go over the MSB and it truncates, with all the nastiness that implies. Higher sampling rate? Good thing in theory, the more is always better paradigm, but as to how much it can possible matter I remain skeptical.
But back to the OP, if he thinks one input or another sounds better, or one file or the other (whether for sampling rate reasons or mastering reasons), that's wonderful. Should listen to whatever he thinks sounds better, and I'm sure many of us are slightly envious of his BL90s. And I can heartily support his use of an Auralic product, an outstanding little company with outstanding s/w and support.
But I also think there's a lot of snake oil going on in the HD audio world right now.
P.S. MM, thanks for posting the PDF, I'd not seen that before. What a beast!
Good find MM,- I used to work on, or should I say nourish one of those beasts
Remember,- I responded to the transfer from analog to digital aspect! I could not care less about what happens when the the streaming merchants deploy their sales strategies, I declined that ecosystem a long time ago
You simply cannot capture the qualities of these tapes inside the realm of a 16/44 conversion. 15 IPS packs a lot of information!
Two thing worth remembering:
1. The human ear easily accepts negative S/N ratios.
2. Analog tapes have a gentle roll off frequency wise, nothing like the filters used when the CD emerged.