What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[DavidW]

Do you download mainly high resolution, (higher than 16/44.1)?  While I totally believe that the recording & mastering are far more important to the result than resolution per se, some instances of hi-rez make mre thing it can sound better -- this is especially true now that I have a near SOTA low distortion repro chain.

My only downloads are from Hyperion Records since they don't stream and those are all 16/44.1 flac.  My streaming where 99.99% of my listening is from is frequently high res since I have a subscription to Qobuz.  I can't tell the difference.  I can hear the differences between speakers and headphones with ease.  Amps with some effort.  DACs with considerable effort.  And differences in source not at all.  The only times I could was the occasional dodgy master on Spotify where there was clipping or distortion and I switch to Qobuz or Primephonic and it's fine.  I'm not even sensitive to analog hiss in older recordings anymore when I used to be since my sensitivity to treble has fallen off with age.  And in fact I listen to those older recordings more often because they are likely to put the microphones where I could actually sit in the concert hall instead of in the middle of the orchestra.

I should probably make more of an effort to support the industry by purchasing music now and then.

[71 dB]

Do you download mainly high resolution, (higher than 16/44.1)?  While I totally believe that the recording & mastering are far more important to the result than resolution per se, some instances of hi-rez make mre thing it can sound better -- this is especially true now that I have a near SOTA low distortion repro chain.

Recording & mastering are everything. Hi-Res consumer audio exists to milk gullible audiophools wanting to "upgrade" their audio gear and music collection again and again... ...the truth is when you have a well recorded and mastered recording at 44.1/16 played with good audio gear, high quality speakers in a room with good acoustics you are pretty much done. 

[Fëanor]

My only downloads are from Hyperion Records since they don't stream and those are all 16/44.1 flac.  My streaming where 99.99% of my listening is from is frequently high res since I have a subscription to Qobuz.  I can't tell the difference.  I can hear the differences between speakers and headphones with ease.  Amps with some effort.  DACs with considerable effort.  And differences in source not at all.  The only times I could was the occasional dodgy master on Spotify where there was clipping or distortion and I switch to Qobuz or Primephonic and it's fine.  I'm not even sensitive to analog hiss in older recordings anymore when I used to be since my sensitivity to treble has fallen off with age.  And in fact I listen to those older recordings more often because they are likely to put the microphones where I could actually sit in the concert hall instead of in the middle of the orchestra.

I couldn't agree more about the "perspective" issue:  I want to hear on records what I am likely to hear from my place in the audience.  That said, there are some fine newer recordings.

I don't download much but much more often buy a CD though I immediately rip it to FLAC.  A good recording is far more relevant than whether it's "Red Book" or hi-rez.

I don't stream.  Mostly that's because I don't find the streaming services' interface very Classical listener-friendly.

I should probably make more of an effort to support the industry by purchasing music now and then.

[Fëanor]

Recording & mastering are everything. Hi-Res consumer audio exists to milk gullible audiophools wanting to "upgrade" their audio gear and music collection again and again... ...the truth is when you have a well recorded and mastered recording at 44.1/16 played with good audio gear, high quality speakers in a room with good acoustics you are pretty much done. 

I strongly tend to agree ... Although a couple of days ago I listen to M. Tilson Thomas' Mahler 5th at 24/96 and -- as it seemed to me -- it sounded better than his Mahler 1st at 16/44.1.  Could just be my audiophile imagination at work, of course.

Further, I should say I never heard a difference between the two before I got my Purifi 1ET400A-based amplifier, but again ...

[DavidW]

I also have a large collection of flacs from cd rips.  You should check out Idagio or Primephonic.  They are classical music streaming services and have far superior curation and searching as compared to the mainstream services.

[71 dB]

I strongly tend to agree ... Although a couple of days ago I listen to M. Tilson Thomas' Mahler 5th at 24/96 and -- as it seemed to me -- it sounded better than his Mahler 1st at 16/44.1.  Could just be my audiophile imagination at work, of course.

Further, I should say I never heard a difference between the two before I got my Purifi 1ET400A-based amplifier, but again ...

You can't compare different recordings (and even works!) to compare audio formats. Make a 44.1/16 downsampled version of the Mahler 5th 96/24 and compare those two. I quarantee you won't hear any difference and if you do it's all placebo (will disappear in blind tests).

Digital audio works a lot against intuition and that's why there are lots of misunderstandings about digital audio among people. It seems to be difficult for people to understand that for example bit depth doesn't affect fidelity such as distortion and precision of waveform. It affects noise floor. Less bit depth means higher noise floor. If you make a properly dithered 8 bit downmix of a higher bit version it will have the exact same fidelity! The reason why it sounds crap and why we don't use 8 bit audio is because it has very high noise floor. Consumer audio needs about 80 dB (~13 bits ) of dynamic range to meet the most demanding listening scenarios (very loud listening levels in very quiet listening room). Using shaped dither noise digital audio can be made perceptually to have more bits than there are technically. Given these facts it's easy to conclude 16 bit digital audio has at least 3 bits more of dynamic range than needed in even the most demanding listening situations assuming the dynamic range is used optimally. However, when hi-res recordings are truncated into 16 bit format, shaped dither is almost always used (e.g. Sony's super bit mapping) increasing perceptual dynamic range by a few bits. This is why people never hear the digital noise floor of 16 bit audio. Whatever noise they hear is part of the original recording. The sampling rate subject is more complicated and it's a bit controversal how much the brickwall filtering at 20 kHz with 44.1 kHz digital audio affects fidelity, but the fact that it's controversal tells how small of an issue it is. I can tell apart the five selectable reconstruction filters of my CD player when I use headphones and no oversampling because the filters affect high frequency phase response. Then again, it's merely a very small change in the width in the stereo image. The way music is produced and mixed affect stereo image much much more and oversampling pretty much eliminates this issue.

[Fëanor]

You can't compare different recordings (and even works!) to compare audio formats. Make a 44.1/16 downsampled version of the Mahler 5th 96/24 and compare those two. I quarantee you won't hear any difference and if you do it's all placebo (will disappear in blind tests).

Digital audio works a lot against intuition and that's why there are lots of misunderstandings about digital audio among people. It seems to be difficult for people to understand that for example bit depth doesn't affect fidelity such as distortion and precision of waveform. It affects noise floor. Less bit depth means higher noise floor. If you make a properly dithered 8 bit downmix of a higher bit version it will have the exact same fidelity! The reason why it sounds crap and why we don't use 8 bit audio is because it has very high noise floor. Consumer audio needs about 80 dB (~13 bits ) of dynamic range to meet the most demanding listening scenarios (very loud listening levels in very quiet listening room). Using shaped dither noise digital audio can be made perceptually to have more bits than there are technically. Given these facts it's easy to conclude 16 bit digital audio has at least 3 bits more of dynamic range than needed in even the most demanding listening situations assuming the dynamic range is used optimally. However, when hi-res recordings are truncated into 16 bit format, shaped dither is almost always used (e.g. Sony's super bit mapping) increasing perceptual dynamic range by a few bits. This is why people never hear the digital noise floor of 16 bit audio. Whatever noise they hear is part of the original recording. The sampling rate subject is more complicated and it's a bit controversal how much the brickwall filtering at 20 kHz with 44.1 kHz digital audio affects fidelity, but the fact that it's controversal tells how small of an issue it is. I can tell apart the five selectable reconstruction filters of my CD player when I use headphones and no oversampling because the filters affect high frequency phase response. Then again, it's merely a very small change in the width in the stereo image. The way music is produced and mixed affect stereo image much much more and oversampling pretty much eliminates this issue.

I might, as you suggest, created a downsampled version of a couple of movements of that Tilson Thomas/Mahler 5th just to see.  I'm certainly NOT going to argue that they will sound different.  I was only conveying my impression.  Then again at my age I am stone deaf above 10kHz.

My Topping D90 DAC uses the AK4499 chip with selectable filters;  I've never used anything other than the default, (whatever that is), since I have been satisfied with what I'm hearing.

Again, I agree recording & mastering are what make a great recording, not the digital depth.

[71 dB]

I might, as you suggest, created a downsampled version of a couple of movements of that Tilson Thomas/Mahler 5th just to see.  I'm certainly NOT going to argue that they will sound different.  I was only conveying my impression.  Then again at my age I am stone deaf above 10kHz.

Yes. I didn't write my post only for you, but as general education as some people keep insisting hi-res audio has more fidelity than good old 44.1/16.

My Topping D90 DAC uses the AK4499 chip with selectable filters;  I've never used anything other than the default, (whatever that is), since I have been satisfied with what I'm hearing.

The default filter is the brick wall filter meaning it goes straight up to 20 kHz and then drops like a rock! Good frequency and phase response, but bad impulse response (major pre- and post ringing). The other filters provide other kind of compromises, such as rounder filter that starts to drop at around 15 kHz, but has better impulse response with milder ringing and possible only post ringing (minimum phase filter that is "analog-like"). Try them out and then you know how they work and which one you like the best.

Again, I agree recording & mastering are what make a great recording, not the digital depth.

0:)

[Daverz]

Yes. I didn't write my post only for you, but as general education as some people keep insisting hi-res audio has more fidelity than good old 44.1/16.

The default filter is the brick wall filter meaning it goes straight up to 20 kHz and then drops like a rock! Good frequency and phase response, but bad impulse response (major pre- and post ringing). The other filters provide other kind of compromises, such as rounder filter that starts to drop at around 15 kHz, but has better impulse response with milder ringing and possible only post ringing (minimum phase filter that is "analog-like"). Try them out and then you know how they work and which one you like the best.

0:)

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/audiophile-myth-260-detestable-digital.html

"The key here is to remember that within a properly bandwidth limited signal where all the frequencies are below Nyquist, a linear phase FIR filter actually does not create ringing regardless of the impulse response appearance. As I have said in the previous weeks, any decent recording will follow this rule. And if it does, then the ideal filter to use is clearly a linear phase, sharp filter that can reconstruct all the frequencies in the audio data with essentially ideal temporal resolution."

The whole pre-ringing FUD about brickwall filters is based on misinformation.  Please don't propagate this BS.

[71 dB]

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/audiophile-myth-260-detestable-digital.html

"The key here is to remember that within a properly bandwidth limited signal where all the frequencies are below Nyquist, a linear phase FIR filter actually does not create ringing regardless of the impulse response appearance. As I have said in the previous weeks, any decent recording will follow this rule. And if it does, then the ideal filter to use is clearly a linear phase, sharp filter that can reconstruct all the frequencies in the audio data with essentially ideal temporal resolution."

The whole pre-ringing FUD about brickwall filters is based on misinformation.  Please don't propagate this BS.

Oops, looks like I wasnt clear enough about what I mean: The filter impulse response has ringing. That's self-evident, as the only impulse response without ringing is impulse itself which requires infinite bandwidth, which in turn is not even close what we have in digital audio. When the signal gets reconstructed we have a sum of these sinc-shaped responses weighted by the sample points at sampling rate distance from each other. What happens is the ringing of all these impulse responses nullify each other.

Of course the default linear phase (constant group delay) filter is the "correct one", but that doesn't mean someone can't prefer less "correct" options for whatever reason.

Btw, talking about audio myths, the belief of digital audio having limited temporal resolution set by the sampling rate is incorrect. Temporal resolution of digital audio is practically infinite only limited by the quantization noise, but then again you probably mean non- linear phase filter cause spectal components to spread a little bit in time as the group delay in not constant, but frequency-dependent.

[DavidW]

Btw, talking about audio myths, the belief of digital audio having limited temporal resolution set by the sampling rate is incorrect.

It doesn't help that major hifi companies and record labels frequently show a picture showing discretized sine curves when they know that is not at all how PCM works.

[Daverz]

It doesn't help that major hifi companies and record labels frequently show a picture showing discretized sine curves when they know that is not at all how PCM works.

I think that's why we get these ridiculous digital transfers of analog recordings with a 192 kHz sampling rate.

[71 dB]

It doesn't help that major hifi companies and record labels frequently show a picture showing discretized sine curves when they know that is not at all how PCM works.

The most devious "staircase" in the World: It makes people think they understand digital audio. I was a "staircase believer" too before learning about digital audio and signal processing in university.

I think that's why we get these ridiculous digital transfers of analog recordings with a 192 kHz sampling rate.

As I said, it's a neat way to milk audiophools...

[DavidW]

Well I love my Paradigm speakers.  I also upgraded the amp.  Today I replaced my Marantz avr with an NAD power amp.  And guess what?  It made a difference.  Much better dynamics.  And the speakers resolved microphonic detail.  In my naivety I thought only good headphones could do that.  I could hear someone cough from a great distance.  I not only could hear Bernstein turn the page in the score, I could hear other players do the same as well. 

I only have one last upgrade for my stereo and then it is complete.

[71 dB]

Well I love my Paradigm speakers.  I also upgraded the amp.  Today I replaced my Marantz avr with an NAD power amp.  And guess what?  It made a difference.  Much better dynamics.  And the speakers resolved microphonic detail.  In my naivety I thought only good headphones could do that.  I could hear someone cough from a great distance.  I not only could hear Bernstein turn the page in the score, I could hear other players do the same as well. 

I only have one last upgrade for my stereo and then it is complete.

What NAD model do you have?

[DavidW]

What NAD model do you have?

The C268 which is a stereo power amp.  I don't need more channels it is just for 2 channel music listening.  That model received a recommended rating from ASR.  I looked at an Emotiva one but couldn't find enough substantive reviews and measurements.  The other thing I looked at it was buying two Outlaw Audio monoblocks, but they're already unavailable!

[71 dB]

The C268 which is a stereo power amp.  I don't need more channels it is just for 2 channel music listening.  That model received a recommended rating from ASR.  I looked at an Emotiva one but couldn't find enough substantive reviews and measurements.  The other thing I looked at it was buying two Outlaw Audio monoblocks, but they're already unavailable!

Okay. Nothing wrong with a stereo setup. It's easier to do well than multichannel system and most of recorded music tends to be in stereo or mono. A little more than year ago when my multichannel amp (NAD T762) stopped working properly I considered going stereo (because most of my listening is with headphones anyway, but I bought NAD T758. It was a catastrophic hit economically, but what do you do? Life without hi-fi is not worth living... 

[Fëanor]

Funny:  sometimes what goes around comes around.  Nine years ago I sold my Sonic Frontiers Line 1 preamplifier.  I came to regret selling it.  (These tube preamps were made in Canada;  they have been out of production for about 20 years but are still expertly serviced by the original owner and technicians.)

Recently a member on a an audiophile forum offered one for sale;  my nostalgia got the better of me and I bought.  At the moment I awaiting delivery.

My original Sonic Frontiers Line 1, (the round thing is the remote control) ...



My forthcoming "new" SF Line 1;  (yes, I like the black face place better but what the heck) ...

[DavidW]

I've been down that road before of buying something old and out of production out of nostalgia. It is always good until it breaks.  Hopefully that won't happen to your preamp.  Mostly what I get is nostalgia drives the purchase but then the experience makes me realize how truly fomo and thinking new is much better drives purchasing decisions.  What I'm saying is that the old stuff is still great.

[Fëanor]

I've been down that road before of buying something old and out of production out of nostalgia. It is always good until it breaks.  Hopefully that won't happen to your preamp.  Mostly what I get is nostalgia drives the purchase but then the experience makes me realize how truly fomo and thinking new is much better drives purchasing decisions.  What I'm saying is that the old stuff is still great.

Unfortunately in this day & age lots of electronics are inherently unrepairable:  the paradigm is, if it breaks get a new one.  Few things are repairable forever except the most primitive sort.

At least in the case of my Sonic Frontiers preamp, the owner of Parts Connexion and an original founder of Sonic Frontiers, assured me just a few days ago that it was fully repairable.  Needless to say this situation won't last forever either but it's probably good for a few years.