16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4

[manisandher]

Done. You can download them here: http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=ZPOOCCHMGRMLXGT

But, I wouldn't get too excited - I used a pretty modest vinyl setup:

- Technics SP-10 MkII turntable on a solid metal plinth (wall-mounted on a solid brick wall)
- SME 3009 S2 (pre-improved) arm
- Denon 103 cartridge
- Cardas armtube cable (single run from cartridge to phono stage in balanced configuration, terminated with XLR plugs)
- AQVOX phono stage (balanced MC input, balanced output)

(For those of you who are interested, the cartridge resonance occurs below 10Hz with this setup.)

On the digital side:

- Pacific Microsonics Model Two
- AES/EBU cable (for signal) and BNC-terminated coaxial cable (for wordclock)
- RME AES-32 PCI interface
- RME Digicheck 'Global Record' software

(No analogue or digital gain/attenuation was used whatsoever in the AQVOX, the PMII or the RME.)

Cheers,
Mani

[pedal]

Thanks!

I allways enjoy listening to vinyl. I have heard this track several times on my friend Leif's super turntable and the big stomp in the kickdrum is hard to get from the CD. It is probably certainly a vinyl artifact (resonances etc), but never the less the drumkit SOUNDS "better" than I have heard from my CD.

I will revert later on!

[Marcin_gps]

OK. 24/176 track is much better from the first seconds. It strikes you with wider soundstage with 'lot of air'. The sound is fuller, especially in the mid-range. (sax)

[manisandher]

For those of you who downloaded these files, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the sound of the 16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4 file.

Cheers,
Mani.

[pedal]

OK. 24/176 track is much better from the first seconds. It strikes you with wider soundstage with 'lot of air'. The sound is fuller, especially in the mid-range. (sax)

Yes, I agree on your points. And also there is more texture to the instruments and it sounds more resolved. The 16/44 track sounds canned ("CD") in comparison, more dry and boring to listen to. (This is my impression after a quick A-B today).

Afterwards, I had to try my CD rip. It sounds cleaner, but I miss the extra low end kick which the vinyl has. The CD bass is tighter (and probably more faithful to the mastertape) but never the less I prefer the vinyl bass on this track. (Which often is the case with recordings from 50s and 60s).

It was a nice vinyl rip, although hearing the same LP at "leif" (he is a forum member, too) is even more impressive, through his $$$ vinyl rig.

[manisandher]

Thanks Marcin, thanks pedal for your views.

I'm still looking for others' experiences before I share my own...

Cheers,
Mani.

[PeterSt]

So am I ...

But I already feel the need to say that might it be so that people thought "hey nice, let's download some hires" ... there are other sites for that. So if that is the case, notice you took away the download facility for others with more real intentions and I already feel the urge to track down who the other gang is. So if you see your name popup outside your own posts, you know what the origin is.

But not yet ! 

[phantomax]

So am I ...

But I already feel the need to say that might it be so that people thought "hey nice, let's download some hires" ... there are other sites for that. So if that is the case, notice you took away the download facility for others with more real intentions and I already feel the urge to track down who the other gang is. So if you see your name popup outside your own posts, you know what the origin is.

But not yet ! 

Hello,
First of all I have to admit that my intention when I downloaded the archives was only to make a comparison between them and my own vinyl recordings just to confirm how good all of them are for me.
 I don´t make vinyl recordings very often because is a tedious job,  the record has to be in good conditions and then you have to cut the archive and generate a cue. My opinions at this respect are not relevant because I have not the so called "golden ears". I have a syntetic ears instead an analytical ones.  I like it or I don´t. I am so simple. Furthermore my Dac doesn't admit 176,4 so I can't compare to 16/44.1
Well, said that I must confess I feel sorry about the inconvenience caused to the forum and to Mani in particular whose question was very clear. But honestly I didn´t expect the number of downloads were so conclusive.
To amend this I have the intention of make a recording at 16/44,1 ( as I use to do ) and at 24/96 (maximun admited on my DAC) but as I have explained above, don't expect very clear conclusions.

Maxi

[GerardA]

Ok, ok, if you start to threat...

I listened to the 44 first and thought, well it sounds good. I don't expect the hires to sound much better, and got a bit bored of the one-note hihat, one-note sax and one-note drum.
But than the 174 started off and sounded almost completely different.
The first thing you hear is the acoustic off the recording place, it sounded warmer, less upfront and not one-note anymore.
Not boring at all anymore and now I can understand why you liked to record this song.

But I used no oversampling/ QAP on 44 so maybe that changes the picture?

Edit: Just tried 44 QAP and I think now it is more detailed, bass drum more clear, more space but not the aha-feeling.

[Josef]

If I understand correctly, 16/44 version was really recorded like that?

If so, IMHO this is not a fair comparison: it would be much more interesting if 16/44 was derived from 'master' 24/176. To save you the trouble I did just that - get it here:
http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=ADMNTWIBWBZXRRS

As I don't have hardware that can play 24/176 I'd like all to please compare and share your thoughts again!

[manisandher]

IMHO this is not a fair comparison...

Josef, the comparison wasn't meant to be just between the native 16/44.1 and the native 24/176.4. I was hoping that people would try comparing an AP-upsampled 16/44.1 to the native 24/176.4. I know of one person on this forum who actually prefers the former to the latter.

As for downsampling/decimating the 24/176.4 to 16/44.1 and comparing it to the native 16/44.1, well this is exactly what my ADC does internally when recording at 16/44.1 - internally it works at 24/176.4 (or 24/192) and downsamples/decimates to 16/44.1. So here you will really be testing whether your decimation DSP is better than the decimation DSP in my ADC. Still, an interesting test (for me at least) which I will do.

Which program did you use for the downsampling/decimation?

Cheers,
Mani.

[pedal]

Josef, the comparison wasn't meant to be just between the native 16/44.1 and the native 24/176.4. I was hoping that people would try comparing an AP-upsampled 16/44.1 to the native 24/176.4.

I didn't use the ArcP eigther, only straight 16/44. (Actually ArchP doesnt work on the XX version I have been using the last month. I havnt updated to the current version, because I have only played hi-rez files lately - so no need/hurry). I have some time tomorrow to do an software update and re-listen to the 16/44 with 4xArc!

[PeterSt]

Josef, the comparison wasn't meant to be just between the native 16/44.1 and the native 24/176.4. I was hoping that people would try comparing an AP-upsampled 16/44.1 to the native 24/176.4.

It is not all that easy to make apples and apples from this;
AP is supposed to mimic the original higher res file, but it will mangle with the upsampling algorithms in the DAC. The latter is already doubtful (for me) because once upsampled already, the DAC('s algorithms) may leave it alone. That is at least what I expect for some DACs (but can't be prooved by me).
The other way around, if you do nothing (no AP), it's for sure left to the DAC what it makes of it, and I don't think it can be anything good. But then there are also the NOS DACs which do *nothing* with it, and now it will be wrong because of too much harmonic distortion.

Notice that under the hood this test is about what may go wrong at recording 176.4 files (what may be applied to it which mangles in the first place) vs. what is *not* applied to it when recorded at 16/44.1. But then of course ...

As for downsampling/decimating the 24/176.4 to 16/44.1 and comparing it to the native 16/44.1, well this is exactly what my ADC does internally when recording at 16/44.1 - internally it works at 24/176.4 (or 24/192) and downsamples/decimates to 16/44.1.

... such a thing shouldn't be happening. I must honestly say though that I don't know whether it will be normal for any digital recording device to approach it like this. I mean, it can just as well work so that during the recording the sampler runs at 44.1, and thus really nothing is done to the recorded samples further. I wouldn't even know how to check for that, otherwise than connecting the scope to ... yeah, what ? I know about the "output" lines (at playback), but input lines ? I may not even have ever heard of it ! So FYI :
At playback there's a bit clock and word clock running, and they change per sample rate used at playback (both derived from the physical clock which always runs at the same speed). But at recording ? as said, I wouldn't even know where to look for. Sure not those same "i2s" lines ...

Peter

[manisandher]

I wrote this in another thread a while ago:

Here's what Michael Ritter (of Pacific Microsonics) wrote in 'Mix' magazine in 1999, before the Model Two was released:

"The actual A/D converter in the Model One runs at 24 bits and 176.4 kHz currently; the Model Two will also convert at 192 kHz. We improve the linearity of our conversion with a high-amplitude broadband dither signal that we mix in with the program in the analog domain. The dither appears to be random, but the system knows at any given instant precisely what the amplitude of that dither signal is. And because we use our own custom, discrete, full-ladder converter with excellent amplitude and phase accuracy, we are able to apply an 'anti-dither' signal, exactly out-of-phase and matched in time, in the digital domain after conversion. That nulls the dither noise out of the signal.

If it's going to be a 176.4 or 192kHz release, then we will not decimate that signal; we use a proprietary [analogue] filter optimized to that sample rate. If it's going to be 88.2/96 kHz, we use 2:1 decimation, and once again we use a filter optimized to that frequency. But in both high-resolution settings, the Nyquist frequency is high enough that we don't use the 'dynamic decimation' process that becomes necessary when we go down to 44.1 or 48 kHz."

Mani

[PeterSt]

If it's going to be a 176.4 or 192kHz release, then we will not decimate that signal; we use a proprietary [analogue] filter optimized to that sample rate

I hope this stays on-topic, but this would proove what I am saying all the time ? (maybe not in here, but for others : I do).

Why in the world would this be necessary, when during playback this is also done ?

Also interesting (for me) : what would be "dynamic decimation" ? This, about a possibly clue that 16/44.1 sounds less mangled with (this is a very indirect derival of 8xAP possibly outbettering "native" 176.4).

Peter


PS: I too will tell about my findings later, hoping for some others to be first.