HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Looks like the judge was just as confused as you.

DQ, in simple terms - NOTHING WRONG WITH RED BOOK CD's and the reason why so many so called high resolution music files sound 'better' is more often than not the fact that some digital tweaking has gone on to 'alter' the sound. Also, SOME early digital transfers weren't done very well, so re-visiting them and transferring afresh will improve the sound as less mistakes will be made.

King crimson analogue tapes won't have the full red-book CD dynamic range either and 'quieter' could mean some digital noise reduction added. Either that, or your CD transport is fudging the issue...

I understand the words I was questioning how they addressed your suggestion that you consider frettless comments to be inaccurate as if they do they do somewhat obliquely in a manner i fail to understand .

Progmeister want's something that plays DVDA discs I assume which has no relevance as to whether Dave thinks it's no better than red book. Depends on what you want to spend but Denon Universal players of a few years ago do DVDA and SACD well but not such a good job of CD which requires a better external DAC. 2900, 3900 and 3950 series go for little money and can be snapped up for under £100. If more to spend (£10000) go for a nice new Oppo by all means which also does blue ray audio and networked files. BTW in my experience the extra 8 bits and sampling rates of hi-res formats appear to make a difference in listenability of digital formats giving that extra micro detail and relaxed presentation that makes vinyl attractive. Obviously depends on mastering (have some loudness war victim SACDs).

Classicrock wrote:. BTW in my experience the extra 8 bits and sampling rates of hi-res formats appear to make a difference in listenability of digital formats giving that extra micro detail and relaxed presentation that makes vinyl attractive. Obviously depends on mastering (have some loudness war victim SACDs).

The extra 8 bits give you increased dynamic range. Nothing else, they will have no effect on 'micro detail'. Red book already has a dynamic range so large it is not practical to use it all.


If you can hear tiny, tiny differences this may be down to frequencies above 22Khz affecting frequencies you can hear although the possibility that this happens is currently sheer conjecture. If you can hear obvious differences then it is the mastering, even if you think - or have been told - that it is the same master.

SACD players have substantial 'noise' output between 20k and I think, 50k, so this may well be doing something lower down for all I know!

Anyway, micro-details as in vinyl are only around 20 to 30db down on peak levels and nowhere near the -96db available from modern 16 bit digital sources... Vinyl has at most around 40db dynamic range in the midrange, which does increase at high frequencies to around 70db on a good pressing - about the same as a really good FM radio signal.

Do you know in the wam they have a "hifi subjecivist" room were serge and others of his ilk are not allowed , can we have a measurement monkey room were people can spout measurements and I am not allowed to point out they are talking abstract bollocks of zero relevance

dsjr and macca can talk red book, headroom , db , etc etc .

It is just conjecture but it does explain why people hear a difference between otherwise identical masters. At best it could only make a small difference, but then small differences are what hi-fi is all about. No-one has ever managed to spot the difference blind, though.

As you said earlier the Crimson stuff are analogue recordings so there will definately be no recorded programme over 20 Khz and probably nothing over 15Khz, that being the limits of the tape and the mics. So quite what extending the dynamic range beyond 94dB and the bandwith above 22Khz can actually add is a bit of a mystery.

DQ - it isn't a question of measurements - it is simply how the technology works. People think they are buying something special whern they buy 'hi rez' but it is nothing of the sort. I would have thought a consumer champion like yourself would be all over it?

Macca wrote:DQ - it isn't a question of measurements - it is simply how the technology works. People think they are buying something special whern they buy 'hi rez' but it is nothing of the sort. I would have thought a consumer champion like yourself would be all over it?

You were correct initially , it is just conjecture .

I dont have an opinion , however people on this forum have reported they hear differences and I can see no obvious , immediate and compelling reason to discount them and certainly nothing you and dsjr have said and you are both tittering on the edge of discounting what they hear with half baked not fully understood conjecture .

You are jumping to the conclusion that I have not done the listening comparisons myself. I have and between the same masters I heard no difference. On a number of different systems.

And when you look at what 'hi rez' is that is not a surprise, since it is not 'high rez' at all. It simply has more dynamic range and is able to reproduce frequencies over 22Khz (assuming they exist on the master which they won't if it is an analogue master). That's it. It does not work the same as high def telly despite some otherwise quite educated people assuming that it does.

But then I suppose you will argue that ignorance is bliss....