High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?

[restorer-john]

Just now:

 

[restorer-john]

A little better on a better server:

 

[amirm]

So, if the CD is dead, and music is being distributed via the internet, who's going to buy Hi-Res with download speeds like that?

I get 170 mbit/sec out in the wilderness and have bought tons of high-res. Some with packages at big as 6 gigabytes. No issues at all.

The demographics of such buyers tends to have much higher speed connection than average person across the whole country.

 

[amirm]

A little better on a better server:

View attachment 13803

Mine is a "bit" faster over wifi no less:

 

[Blumlein 88]

This "good" result is only possible late at night like this. And this is the better server.

 

[restorer-john]

Mine is a "bit" faster over wifi no less:

Oh my goodness- are you hooked straight into Bill Gates' brain?

 

[restorer-john]

Well at least my 'ping' is faster than yours!

 

[Don Hills]

If you want real speed, go really down under. It's mid evening here, peak traffic or I'd be getting closer to the 1Gbps I pay about US$72/month for.

 

[DonH56]

At work I just measured 5.25 Mb/s download, 11.5 Mb/s upload (opposite what I am used to seeing). It reports my internet is "slow" and "good for one device at a time streaming video". Too bad there are 200+ on-site, not streaming video, but fairly heavy users since everything is networked.

At home I usually get about 3-10 Mb/s download, 1-3 Mb/s upload, on Xfinity in a rural'ish area. More like "rural suburban" but internet service is horrible for everyone around here. Ours is a subdivision with big lots (2.5+ acres, zoned for horses, Thomas should be proud) between a couple of larger more crowded subdivisions. We've been left out of most of the high-speed cable runs, plus my house is ~100 yards from the nearest pole (drop) so service is slow and gets interrupted about once a month. I get tired of Comcast/Xfinity fliers trying to get me more BW when they are only delivering a fraction of what I supposedly get now, and CenturyLink fliers when DSL isn't even available here (too far from a CO).

Third-world problems in a first-world country? Those must be "big city" averages...

 

[Thomas Savage]

Oh my goodness- are you hooked straight into Bill Gates' brain?

This would help to explain bills recent obsession for all things schiit ..

 

[Sal1950]

Mine is a "bit" faster over wifi no less:

Faster wifi than ethernet?
Thats strange.

 

[Wombat]

If you want real speed, go really down under. It's mid evening here, peak traffic or I'd be getting closer to the 1Gbps I pay about US$72/month for.

View attachment 13807

All of us Aussies are REALLY ENVIOUS of NZ's system. We have to settle for less than 3rd world performance from a government that espouses 'innovation'.

 

[j_j]

@j_j would you care to comment on audibility of sample rates, transition bands and filtering. Specifically why you've suggested 60-65 khz sample rates with roll-off starting at 25 to 30 khz.

While not a solitary soul has proven that such audibility has ever, EVER been heard by a human being, I can just BARELY propose a mechanism that might make constant-delay filters have some strange artifacts having to do nonlinear behavior of the ear. So, I repeat again, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS MECHANISM IS A PROBLEM.

Having said that, sampling at 64kHz, with an anti-aliasing/imaging filter that rolls off between 25 and 32 kHz, completely extinguishes even the potential for such a mechanism.

Being a touch conservative, that's how I'd do things. Yeah, fat chance, I know.

 

[j_j]

Even Apple write:

«An ideal master will have 24-bit 96kHz resolution.

Where do I get these ADC's and mic pre's that give me a full 24 bits? Seriously!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where do I get these ADC's and mic pre's that give me a full 24 bits? Seriously!

Well better yet what about the 32 bit DACs, yet I don't know of any 32 bit ADCs. Much less 24 bit ones that get you more than 20 bits.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Where do I get these ADC's and mic pre's that give me a full 24 bits? Seriously!

Stagetec claim more than 24 bits:

«The previous version of NEXUS converter boards already used a 24-bit TrueMatch; however, their resolution was limited to 22-bit words. The new generation of converters has a resolution of 26.5 bits that is enhanced to 28 bits».
Source: https://www.stagetec.com/en/mediagr...ter-than-the-microphone-pauler-acoustics.html

Stagetec is widely used by competent and resourceful engineers: https://www.stagetec.com/en/references.html

 

[Blumlein 88]

Stagetec claim more than 24 bits:

«The previous version of NEXUS converter boards already used a 24-bit TrueMatch; however, their resolution was limited to 22-bit words. The new generation of converters has a resolution of 26.5 bits that is enhanced to 28 bits».
Source: https://www.stagetec.com/en/mediagr...ter-than-the-microphone-pauler-acoustics.html

Stagetec is widely used by competent and resourceful engineers: https://www.stagetec.com/en/references.html

Lots to parse there, and frankly until proven otherwise I don't believe them.

I have a recording interface which claims 129 db dynamic range. Now it is very quiet and very wide range. Yet to get to 129 db you are basically allowing a quiet gain circuit to offer the ability to record low level signals with little noise added from the gain circuit, and comparing that to higher level signals without the gain. Not exactly something you can actually do for recording. It does have an excellent 118 db or so of dynamic range at any given gain setting for the ADC. I believe the Truematch system is doing something similar. So some misdirection involved there I am pretty sure.

I also have some microphones with self noise of 3 and 4 dbSPL equivalent, but I've never gotten close to that in any live recording situation.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Lots to parse there, and frankly until proven otherwise I don't believe them.

I have a recording interface which claims 129 db dynamic range. Now it is very quiet and very wide range. Yet to get to 129 db you are basically allowing a quiet gain circuit to offer the ability to record low level signals with little noise added from the gain circuit, and comparing that to higher level signals without the gain. Not exactly something you can actually do for recording. It does have an excellent 118 db or so of dynamic range at any given gain setting for the ADC. I believe the Truematch system is doing something similar. So some misdirection involved there I am pretty sure.

I also have some microphones with self noise of 3 and 4 dbSPL equivalent, but I've never gotten close to that in any live recording situation.

Stagetec isn’t in the microphone business. Their claim of >24 bits is solely for their ADC.

And note, they underlined that their old tech was 24 bits and 22 in real-life.

They argue for the value of the extra bits though microphones aren’t as dynamic.

You used the word «misdirection», which is the same as lying (I always prefer to use the word lying instead of misrepresent, misdirect etc.). It would be great to see measurements of the TrueMatch technology and if Stagetec are lying or not. Their list of references is impressive and doesn’t give the impression of a company built on lies.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Stagetec isn’t in the microphone business. Their claim of >24 bits is solely for their ADC.

And note, they underlined that their old tech was 24 bits and 22 in real-life.

They argue for the value of the extra bits though microphones aren’t as dynamic.

You used the word «misdirection», which is the same as lying (I always prefer to use the word lying instead of misrepresent, misdirect etc.). It would be great to see measurements of the TrueMatch technology and if Stagetec are lying or not. Their list of references is impressive and doesn’t give the impression of a company built on lies.

I would use lying if they said something like "we have 48 bit converters with 48 bit dynamic range". Misdirection is that perhaps what they say is true if taken with a particular special set of caveats. Only they leave out the caveats to imply more than they say hoping you don't question it. Both are dishonest, but one is not an outright lie.

So what do they really mean by 28 bits? That I can shoot synthetic signals thru them and get analog results at 168 db dynamic range? I don't believe them. Not without some other circumspect qualifications. Even then they must be very creative with those qualifications. How do you get that kind of range unless the source has exceptionally small output impedance. They hint at such things, but never quite give the straight dope. So without knowing more their 28 bits means nearly nothing except they aren't being straight with us. Anyone has 28 bits of real performance, show us the results and it will leave no doubt. Nor will anyone have anything except admiration for what has been accomplished.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I would use lying if they said something like "we have 48 bit converters with 48 bit dynamic range". Misdirection is that perhaps what they say is true if taken with a particular special set of caveats. Only they leave out the caveats to imply more than they say hoping you don't question it. Both are dishonest, but one is not an outright lie.

So what do they really mean by 28 bits? That I can shoot synthetic signals thru them and get analog results at 168 db dynamic range? I don't believe them. Not without some other circumspect qualifications. Even then they must be very creative with those qualifications. How do you get that kind of range unless the source has exceptionally small output impedance. They hint at such things, but never quite give the straight dope. So without knowing more their 28 bits means nearly nothing except they aren't being straight with us. Anyone has 28 bits of real performance, show us the results and it will leave no doubt. Nor will anyone have anything except admiration for what has been accomplished.

Here’s Stagetec’s explanation:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/att...ital-other-gs-faux-pas-truematch-function.pdf

I guess measurements would decide if it’s BS or real.