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
Razlaw,
My take on your question (and perhaps I'm just summarizing Jeff, but I did read most of the reference articles and even understood some of them - recalling a rather challenging signal processing class I took in college when DSPs were quite new) is that there are many reasons why a "hi-rez" audio file may sound better, but research and mathematics suggest none of reasons have to do with the fact it is 192khz/24bit.
Note that the main study cited did not say "hi-rez" didn't sound better than CDs. It simply said that "bit-ness" (i.e. 192khz/24bit) was not a factor. It is quite likely that there are "hi-rez" files out there that are more carefully or realistically mastered, than the "mass produced" CD. However, just like many have found with "remastered" CDs, different isn't always better.
This has motivated me to try this myself, can you (or anyone) suggest a few "hi-rez" album or track downloads that you feel sound especially good (relative to their CD equivalent)?
Stan
Razlaw: Similarly I have an audio BluRay disc with tracks in 192khz, 24 bit. If I put the disc in my Oppo BluRay player, it plays fine. If I bring up the Audio display in the Oppo menu it shows that it is playing 192khz, 24 bit. So if the Oppo is playing 192khz/24 bit and sending it to the BV7 and then the BV9s, what is the BV7 doing with the input? Is is downgrading the quality? Thanks in advance.
Thank you both for your answers, but they did not answer my question. I wasn't asking about subjectiveness of sound, which of course there are many things that can affect it.
What I was asking is this, and my apologies if it was not clear:
It has been stated here that no B and O product will handle 192khz/24 bit. However, I have downloaded Linn studio master tracks to my Beosound 5 and they play fine. Also, I have an audio BluRay that has 192khz/24 bit tracks. If I play it in my Oppo BluRay player it will display out put as 192khz/24 bit and plays fine through my B and O.
If B and O products do not work work with 192khz/24 bit, what happens to the 192khz/24 bit data once it gets to a B and O product?
More specifically, what does the Beosound 5 do with the Linn Studio Master tracks on it that allows them to be played by the B and O products?
and
What does the BV7-55 do with the 192khz/24 bit it is receiveing from the Oppo that allows it also to play?
Or put another way, assuming what has been said here about B and O not supporting 192khz/24 bit, why/how am I able to download studio masters from Linn to the Beosound 5 and have them work? Is the Beosound downconverting the files or making other changes to them?
Or maybe I misread the post that caused me to ask the question. I can't find it now. I thought I had read in here that no B and O product worked with 192khz/24 bit.
Beolab 28s Beolab 9s Beolab 12-3s Beolab 1s Beolab 6000s 2 pairs Beolab 4000s Beovision 7-55 Beovision 10-40 Beoplay V1 32 inch Beovision Avant 32 inch Beosound 1 (CD player) Beosound 3000 Beosound 5 Core Essence MKII Beoplay M5
So well said.
@ Martin. (Martina Navratilova)
I'm not sure how B&O handles it, but it's faintly common for systems to decimate 96khz down to 48khz before D to A conversion o would be interested in the answer as well.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Jeff: I'm not sure how B&O handles it, but it's faintly common for systems to decimate 96khz down to 48khz before D to A conversion o would be interested in the answer as well.
I'd have to do some searching to be certain but I don't believe the BL5 has a conventional DAC, rather the PCM stream is converted to PWM and then the drivers themselves form part of the low pass filter that removes the switching frequency.
I also thought that the BL5 was capable of handling 24bit 96KHz over spidf and so I'm slightly bemused as to why there is such a demand to update them, unless I remember incorrectly.
Ban boring signatures!
Interesting, I've not ever had occasion to get into how the Lab 5's work but that's an innovative approach. I think there's a demand to update them just because, well, you know, because!
Iceman10245: Also I would like to contact sometimes to word. I do not ask for excuse there my English well is I try to translate it with the Translater and hope that it is still clear. I think that I can call myself absolute B&o fan. Luckily I have a woman (whom I have exchanged) them this insanity tolerates. She means our flat looks like a B&o business. In 1997 I have bought to myself my first B&o arrangement for my 40th birthday. I was it an Ouverture later against a BS3200 exchanged. Whenever I saw this arrangement in films and the SHEET in 8000 beat faster my heart before enthusiasm. It was and is for me still what the special. Later I armed - in the appendix one sees my devices. The Beolab 5 was for me also the last big highlight in 2008. Still today new visitors whether it UFOs or fountains ask me are. If I put them in the ears mostly fly away to them and they have totally been surprised. And I them to me only a few years them to me "nicely look" had to go. The biggest disappointment was beocom5. Only after some updates it was usable as a phone. And with the Beo 6 I have even annoyance, constantly it does not function, display or other innards are changed. If I today a B&o store enter only disappointment spreads. Nothing makes be beating my heart more or to want to have my desire this. It is a pity... now I think of having reached a final state and will please me probably only in my old devices. For me the BS 9000 is not still a piece of art what I would like to miss. I would never have thought that B&o takes such a development.
Also I would like to contact sometimes to word. I do not ask for excuse there my English well is I try to translate it with the Translater and hope that it is still clear. I think that I can call myself absolute B&o fan. Luckily I have a woman (whom I have exchanged) them this insanity tolerates. She means our flat looks like a B&o business. In 1997 I have bought to myself my first B&o arrangement for my 40th birthday. I was it an Ouverture later against a BS3200 exchanged. Whenever I saw this arrangement in films and the SHEET in 8000 beat faster my heart before enthusiasm. It was and is for me still what the special. Later I armed - in the appendix one sees my devices. The Beolab 5 was for me also the last big highlight in 2008. Still today new visitors whether it UFOs or fountains ask me are. If I put them in the ears mostly fly away to them and they have totally been surprised. And I them to me only a few years them to me "nicely look" had to go. The biggest disappointment was beocom5. Only after some updates it was usable as a phone. And with the Beo 6 I have even annoyance, constantly it does not function, display or other innards are changed. If I today a B&o store enter only disappointment spreads. Nothing makes be beating my heart more or to want to have my desire this. It is a pity... now I think of having reached a final state and will please me probably only in my old devices. For me the BS 9000 is not still a piece of art what I would like to miss. I would never have thought that B&o takes such a development.
Google translate..? Seems there's still a long way to go before we have translators like in Star Trek...But I agree with most of the above (I think).
Dillen: Frustrating if design and technical superiourity doesn't always go together, but that's life and in my opinion thesound quality of B&O is still up there with the better of the bunch. Works for me, anyways.B&O never claimed to be the highest of highend and I believe the majority of B&O buyers and B&Os maintargets aren't highend audiophiles. With B&O, you will own the worlds prettiest sound.Frustrating that producers of highend units can't make decent designs. Martin
Frustrating if design and technical superiourity doesn't always go together, but that's life and in my opinion thesound quality of B&O is still up there with the better of the bunch. Works for me, anyways.B&O never claimed to be the highest of highend and I believe the majority of B&O buyers and B&Os maintargets aren't highend audiophiles.
With B&O, you will own the worlds prettiest sound.Frustrating that producers of highend units can't make decent designs.
Martin
Well said, Martin.
Though I'll have to say that IMO, some of the latest B&O designs are not pretty
Well, if you look at a lot of high end gear you'll find butt ugly and technical superiority often don't go together either!
Jeff: Well, if you look at a lot of high end gear you'll find butt ugly and technical superiority often don't go together either!
When I look at high end gear, I find that butt ugly and technical superiority mostly DO go together...
Jeff: Interesting, I've not ever had occasion to get into how the Lab 5's work but that's an innovative approach. I think there's a demand to update them just because, well, you know, because!
I was told over a year ago that B&O were working on a new high-end speaker which would sit above the BL5 in the range and Dude1 recently confirmed it's imminent. Perhaps B&O are spending their limited resources getting this right, as their new top-of-the-range speaker, than worrying about updating the existing products?
For me, the BL5 performance has always far exceeded anything I could throw at it. After owning a pair of BL5s, then selling them as I could never really use them to capacity, I'm happy enough with the performance of my BL3s/BL11 combo.
Millemissen: "CD-Quality" cannot accommodate HD Audio content. It is not, as one digital download site states, "perfect audio". It is limited to 44.1 kHz/16-bit PCM, 2-channel stereo. This translates to 20-20 kHz and 96 dB [optimistically]. Real life music exceeds these limits. So in order to experience real HD Audio, the source recording has to be made with HD recording equipment AND the musicians need to be present to record their performance. Anything else should not be construed as HD.
"CD-Quality" cannot accommodate HD Audio content. It is not, as one digital download site states, "perfect audio". It is limited to 44.1 kHz/16-bit PCM, 2-channel stereo. This translates to 20-20 kHz and 96 dB [optimistically].
Real life music exceeds these limits. So in order to experience real HD Audio, the source recording has to be made with HD recording equipment AND the musicians need to be present to record their performance. Anything else should not be construed as HD.
Forgive me if I don't get the numbers exactly correct but it's been a while since I read up on this stuff, but - The 96dB number is only true for linear PCM coding, by using oversampling the SNR can be increased by a further 3dB per doubling of sample frequency (therefore 8x oversampling can improve the SNR by a further 12dB), this is due to the same amount of total quantisation noise being spread across a much broader spectrum, the majority of which is then filtered away. Use of noise shaping in Delta-Sigma conversion can further improve the SNR of 16 bit audio up to levels of ~120dB.
It is therefore arguable that real life music can be contained within a well recorded and produced CD.
Recording with 24 bits and high frequencies makes sense to control the noise floor (both in a bit sense and also in an oversampling sense), while also giving ample headroom for unexpected transients etc. when recording. Most DSP after sampling will occur as 32 bit floating point (or better), however frequent trips to the analogue domain and back mean 24 bit resolution minimises cumulative noise build up (like tapes of tapes in the old days). Once mastered, good quality downsampling/dithering to 16 bit 44.11KHz should result a high quality CD - but only if the master itself is of good quality.
Please can we make sure all posts in this forum are in English!
Peter
That's my understanding Puncher. You can get lower that LSB resolution with dither, and how you dither can greatly lower the noise floor in addition to over sampling tricks. I worked on a system that did radar terrain mapping and we were getting sub pixel resolution using the same techniques. which is what makes the whole argument so frustrating, it's the same as the LP has better resolution and freq response than CD dressed up in different clothes, and it ignores the facts just as much.