Mallette:

Since my 58 year old ears clearly hear these differences... 

Dave, not at all questioning that you hear what you hear.
My point is that what you are hearing--in this instance--is a converter misbehaving.

The faster sampling=better notion has gone through a transformation over the past several years.
Very high sampling rates/attributions to ultrasonics--have died a well deserved death in high-end recording.
More information/better understanding, etc.
A few points:

1)  Try the same comparisons with a high-end converter.

2)  Read an excellent short paper by Bob Katz (not an EE but an 'audiophile' recording/mastering engineer) called the Ultimate Listening Test.  He thought 96kHz sounded much better--always liked high bandwidth in analog gear, etc.
Exceptionally well designed audio test, high end gear, many testers around the world.
Used EEs to write digital filters, etc.
Recorded orchestra at 96kHz sample rate, created a secondary files filtered with cut at 20kHz bandwidth. 
What they found was that the FILTER quality made the file difference audible or inaudible.
**Repeated with various sources including castanets (high ultrasonics).
Same result in all cases.
It is the quality of the FILTER not the sample rate.
It can't be said too often--if you hear a difference at different sample rates.....you need better filters.

4)  There is an interesting near consensus among high-end converter designers that about 60kHz is the ideal sampling rate for best sonics.
Not faster, faster, faster.....
And even slower CAN be just as good--filters are just harder to write.

5)  Fast rates (beyond say 60/88/96) are actually worse, they damage the signal and you do not need them to get a transparent result.
If you seem to....again....look at your converter.  All chips universally perform worse when operating at 192.

From listeners reports you seem to get good results.
I am only objecting to the assumptions about causation made from use of your particular converter--or extrapolating to theory from it.
There is a reason better converters are made.

Mark

I have decided not to respond in detail until I've read the book.  It's been some years since I read Mr. Katz.  I certainly recall his poohpoohing of upsampling, but do not recall any suggestion that less accurate is better.  Such a suggestion would indicate a need for filters in wide band amplifiers and preamps and other things that appear counterintuitive.  

Further, even if higher accuracy digital waveforms sound worse than filtered lower sample rates, why not go the cheaper route and use a more accurate sample rate?  Not everyone wants to spend a lot of money on an expensive filter.

Dr. Diamonds original findings back in 1980 or so were what took me down the road of deterimining whether he was right or not.  He suggested that the minimum accuracy of the digital stair steps chosen for Rebook somehow registered in the brain.  His tests were done in old folks homes where high frequency information was certainly not much a of factor.  They were blasted at the time, but have much more credibility today.  

As to my DAC, I am unprepared to believe there is better, at least audibly.  As I've said before, I have something of a photographic memory of live audio events (or at least believe that I do) and I am satisfied when the playback meshes perfectly with my memory of the event.  If it doesn't, it will never see the light of day.  There is absolutely no question that I can hear the lessor accuracy of the Redbook samples as opposed to the 24/88.2, and I certainly do not believe I need a filter to rid myself of the extra accuracy of the waveforms.

OTOH, perhaps I am full of it and my recordings actually sound like doodoo. 

OK, so I responded with more than I intended.  I still intend to obtain and read the book.  Maybe I'll learn that less is more or something.

Thanks for the steer...and yet more food for thought!

Dave 

Mallette:

I have decided not to respond in detail until I've read the book.  It's been some years since I read Mr. Katz.  I certainly recall his poohpoohing of upsampling, but do not recall any suggestion that less accurate is better.  Such a suggestion would indicate a need for filters in wide band amplifiers and preamps and other things that appear counterintuitive.  

Further, even if higher accuracy digital waveforms sound worse than filtered lower sample rates, why not go the cheaper route and use a more accurate sample rate?  Not everyone wants to spend a lot of money on an expensive filter.

Dr. Diamonds original findings back in 1980 or so were what took me down the road of deterimining whether he was right or not.  He suggested that the minimum accuracy of the digital stair steps chosen for Rebook somehow registered in the brain.  His tests were done in old folks homes where high frequency information was certainly not much a of factor.  They were blasted at the time, but have much more credibility today.  

As to my DAC, I am unprepared to believe there is better, at least audibly.  As I've said before, I have something of a photographic memory of live audio events (or at least believe that I do) and I am satisfied when the playback meshes perfectly with my memory of the event.  If it doesn't, it will never see the light of day.  There is absolutely no question that I can hear the lessor accuracy of the Redbook samples as opposed to the 24/88.2, and I certainly do not believe I need a filter to rid myself of the extra accuracy of the waveforms.

Dave,
No one is suggesting that "less accurate is better".
Sampling rate is not connected to accuracy.
A faster rate is not more accurate--there is no accuracy problem--it is imaginary.
Changing sampling rate really only changes the bandwidth.

No stair steps.  That Dr Diamonds was misled.  The output of a AD/DA conversion cycle is.....analog.
All the original signal detail--fully curvaceous, no steps-- within the chosen bandwidth is output totally intact.
Even at poor old 44.1--no lost resolution.  There may be other issues (those filters) but no 'resolution' problem.
The sampled signal even reconstructs what happens between the samples.....

It is non-intuitive.  This is why so much misinformation about digital has stayed in circulation all these years.

Re better converters.....they are excessively expensive.
Rough estimate: Johnson runs about $65,000 worth for 8 channels.
Yours seems to be fine.  It just isn't perfect.
There is always something better.

Mark

>That Dr Diamonds was misled. 

By what?  He was dealing with about as good a blind test as you can get.  Go back and study his results, as I intend to do with Mr. Katz.  Both of them are rather voices crying in the wilderness at their time, as the bulk of the scientific and listening community differ in their opinions. 

This entire discussion over the years has dwelt on not whether, but what the differences are between wide bandwidth recording and limited bandwidth recording.  If Mr. Katz has discovered that the secret is expensive low pass filters, fine.  We will all hear this (assuming we want to put out the money for it).  Of course, there are those (bulk of the industry, actually) who have accomplished this via means of upsampling, then using lower cost filters with smoother slopes to achieve (ostenisbly) that same thing.  Doesn't do the trick, IMHO. 

My primary DAC is Card Deluxe.  I had purchased it based on a lot of research well before the $tereophile reviewer compared it (actually, if you understand the way $tereophile works, he said it was as good or better) to a 15,000.00 Mark Levinson DAC.  If that is what it takes to achieve "perfection" at short word and low sample rates, you can count me out.   

My definition of "perfection" is at my ears.  To the extent I can hear ANYTHING in a recording but what was part of the original time/space event it is an engineering or technical error.  As long as I, and other practiced ears using a variety of equipment, hear a difference in more accurately sampled recordings over those at lower data rates, I'll continue to do this regardless of tests and measurements...just as tube freaks (including myself) continue to listen to their noisy, inaccurate, vintage amps and preamps. 

I might also point out that my Redbook has been reviewed by some rather discriminating ears hear as the most accurate they've ever heard...and it is all downsampled from 24/88.2.  Rather odd, don't you think?

Regardless of the above, I am only stating my experience to date.  I am open and will continue my research into these mysteries.  I must admit I'll be pretty amazed if the technological economies forced on the Redbook designers by the limitations of the time turned out to be the ultimate "perfect sound forever" they promised. 

I would certainly like the establishment to produce a Redbook spec for multichannel.  In spite of many (especially here) who find the applause coming from the orchestra or a bombarde division suddenly nestled in the choir to be OK, I continue to record in surround and think of 2 channel as dual channel mono.  Actually, I've divised an experiment to attempt a reasonable surround image from standard Redbook without special encoding or decoding (beyond that provided by DPLII).  Hope to get a chance to test this soon.

Regards,
Dave

Everyone,

Can any of you recommend a relatively unbiased article (online would be great!) that explains upsampling, downsampling, filtering, and Redbook vs. the other ways people make commercial digital disks?

Since I don't have the equipment to play and compare the (perhaps) advanced formats by ear at the moment, I'd be interested in an article with photographs of waveforms that compare sine waves, square waves, and whatever else, showing them before and after they pass through the A to D to A conversion.  I know it is unlikely that these will tell the whole story.

Thanks

Garyrc:

Everyone,

 

Can any of you recommend a relatively unbiased article (online would be great!) that explains upsampling, downsampling, filtering, and Redbook vs. the other ways people make commercial digital disks?

Since I don't have the equipment to play and compare the (perhaps) advanced formats by ear at the moment, I'd be interested in an article with photographs of waveforms that compare sine waves, square waves, and whatever else, showing them before and after they pass through the A to D to A conversion.  I know it is unlikely that these will tell the whole story.

Thanks

Not I.  I would certainly be interested.  I've read many things over the years starting with Diamonds observations of the impact of Redbook on his elderly patients, but all are snippets rather than global discussions.

My own experiments have satisfied me as to "what."  However, I remain intensely interested in "why."

Dave

Dave,

This is going all around the barn --
My posts made a few basic points:

Sampling rates have nothing to do with 'accuracy' or 'resolution'.
To sample fast will not create a more accurate signal.
There is an 'optimal' rate for sound quality of around 60kHz.
The output of a converter is analog and has no steps and no missing 'detail'.
Redbook CD has nanosecond timing accuracy.
The limits of Redbook are limits of filters.
If a converter sounds better faster it indicates some converter quality 'issues'.
Very fast rates--e.g., past c.96kHz--are damaging (add distortion) to the audio signal.

Nothing new or really controversial.
Page and quote from a good digital audio textbook.....
Broadly understood and accepted even in the 'field' .
Particularly in high-end 'classical' recording circles where signal transparency tends to be an obsession.
Katz is quite well respected by both the audiophile and engineering  folks.  He did that very elegant experiment (1996) with many good ears and it is something of a landmark in that it made the information more widely available and understandable.   It is simply a good example of one point.

Mark

Not really around the barn, and what you may percieve as "pushback" is simply skepticism based on experience both with audio and with many such widely accepted experiments in the past. 

Your points are made and understood.  However, this appears to remain open to question.  Measurements have never been shown to correspond directly in listening experience to many ears...hence VT remains the amp technology of choice for many audiophiles in spite of evidence that SS is clearly superior.

Also, many respected labels who are highly regard, such as Linn and AIX, release in in high resolution...AIX in 2 channel 24/192.  This is certainly not market driven, and they are not idiots. 

As I mentioned (in spite of suggesting I would continue in error until then) it is my intent to study Mr. Katz before further commenting on his findings. 

At my age, I've seen a LOT of "absolute proof" come and go.  My first introduction was the earliest known "live or recorded" experiment that was performed with acoustic disks in the early 1900's. 

As you may know, one of my "touchstones" is applause.  Many on this list said my applause in 16/44.1 was the best they'd heard.  However, on my own system, it is better at 24/88.2   I won't argue "why," because it appears I do not know.  I will also point out the difference is slight to the point that I have to A/B to ensure it is really there. 

It is certainly my hope that I this is not the result of not having a super slope filter I cannot afford.  However, time, research, and further experimentation will reveal the truth. 

And when it does, I will immediately adopt it.  While a man of faith, I keep that to religion and other areas not amenable to scientific inquiry.

Thanks for your input. 

Regards,
Dave

kev313:

This discussion reminds me of an interview that Fremer did with Rick Rubin. Apparently Rubin feels vinyl is superior, although this was certainly a fluff piece and has nothing by way of a technical discussion. It is also enlightening in that Rubin clearly gives the audiophile crowd a big finger on the issue of compression. Bottom line is that compression is good for business and audiophiles ain't...

Chris