D/A converters

[jayne lee wilson]

Dave 2002 - the best way to ensure or check what your computer's doing is, on macs anyway, bring up the Audio Midi Settings where the bitrate/sampling rate is stated. (Applications>Utilities>Audio Midi Setup). Macs often need this adjusting manually to match the original rate of your chosen recording. Mahlerei is of course right, once the digital signal (USB or Optical) is fed out of the computer the DAC becomes the controller, so you just have to check those rates in Audio Midi. I keep it handy in the dock.

Dacs like the Cambridge or Arcam are excellent for computer sources but of course they may not improve on the DAC in a good CD player, especially a recent one. I once tried the Musical Fidelity TriVista Dac, it did little or nothing for an Arcam Alpha 9 CD or a Krell KAV-300, so - horses for courses.

Hi-res - vast subject, reflecting on the limitations of speakers as mentioned in that Computer Audiophile thread. I use the Townsend Supertweeters which might, just might, make those ethereal improvements more audible. What I tend to feel with 24-bit audio is a naturalness, a low-level clarity and presence, and a low-distortion, more open sound in large and fierce orchestral climaxes which is more generous and gratifying. If these improvements are down to the digital engineering being easier using 24-bit etc. in the mastering process, rather than increased information storage/retrieval (audible or not), I'm not too bothered if the results are as good as the recent BIS Dvorak 7th (Malaysian PO/Claus Peter Flor) 24/48 file!

[DublinJimbo]

If these improvements are down to the digital engineering being easier using 24-bit etc. in the mastering process, rather than increased information storage/retrieval (audible or not), I'm not too bothered if the results are as good as the recent BIS Dvorak 7th (Malaysian PO/Claus Peter Flor) 24/48 file!

I've been desperately trying to resist clicking on Buy buttons for a bit, but your enthusiasm for this has worn me down. It's downloading as I write this.

[Dave2002]

On the other hand you might get more fun out of this - http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/...re+Monteux.htm or the version by Paita on the Lodia label, if you can find a copy. Try http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/re...&index=blended

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, and of course there's Rowicki, Suitner etc., etc., but what's extraordinary about Claus Peter Flor's reading is that it treats the 7th as a towering, tragic masterpiece, and never mind its locality - the fact that it sounds nothing like a Czech or Eastern European interpretation ends up in its favour because, so freshly read with a striking and very convincing rubato, it can exist apart from that Slavonic sound that's so known and loved, there in our musical memories. The spaciousness, precision and power of the recording serves the characteristics of the reading - it really does "make it new".

[Mahlerei]

jayne

I know what you mean about Flor and teh Malaysian Philharmonic; their recording of Smetana's Má vlast is first-rate, and it's one of BIS's most natural recordings as well. I think the Petronas concert hall has a lot to do with the end result. I shall be requesting the Dvořák for review, so thanks for the reminder.

BTW I heartily recommend their disc of the Kalinnikov symphonies under Kees Bakels.

[Dave2002]

Jayne

That's interesting. I wasn't trying to downplay the quality of the Claus Peter Flor performance, but I asumed you were recommending it on sonic grounds, rather than musical ones. Of the two I mentioned, both are very good musically, while the Lodia one is, if I recall, also better than average sonically. It is, of course posssible, sometimes, to have a recording in which both the quality of performance and of the recording are very good, though this perhaps doesn't happen too often. If both are possible, then why shouldn't we enjoy that!

On the other hand, on the whole I don't think dull performances are ever truly rescued by spectacular sound.

[Dave2002]

PS: I can't find the Malaysian PO under Flor doing Dvorak 7. Is it a new release, or not yet released?

I was trying to check what versions might be available - such as SACD or downloads.

[Frances_iom]

interesting discussion at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html - no golden ears just mostly scamming in this business!

[DublinJimbo]

PS: I can't find the Malaysian PO under Flor doing Dvorak 7. Is it a new release, or not yet released?

It's a new release on the BIS label, available for download at eClassical. This site has a policy of per-second charging which makes them cheaper to begin with. In addition, they currently offer 24-bit downloads for new releases at the same price as MP3 and 16-bit.

[jayne lee wilson]

Hmm... a very long, complex, scientific (or "scientific") explanation for why we can't hear what our ears tell us, or what some of us say or think we can... apparently written by a rock fan... beware of analysts bearing graphs.

I'll look more closely when I have time, but as I've said before I've not the facility to try 192khz files. Oddly enough it's much easier to analyse SACD as a bit of a scam, but that's another story. Sorry, must dash...

interesting discussion at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html - no golden ears just mostly scamming in this business!

[jayne lee wilson]

OK, read it... not a bad piece, but nothing very new there, a few questionable assumptions but broadly correct about dither, 24-bit etc.
But, "you can't always hear what you can measure, and you can't always measure what you can hear".

It's a neverending story really.

[MrGongGong]

"you can't always hear what you can measure, and you can't always measure what you can hear".

Or "a fool and his/her money ?"
one can imagine that one hears things that simply aren't there because one has spent money or said the magic words

though there are some interesting things in Pauline Oliveros's book "Software for people" about the sonic interaction of ultrasonic sounds in terms of audibility !

[jayne lee wilson]

One thing those of you who trot out this "you only hear it because you've bought it" line always miss is that those of us obsessive/foolish/technomane/(formerly) wealthy enough to buy equipment capable of revealing sonic, and potentially musically-enriching subtleties always audition it at home on a sale-or-return basis; it's how I got most of my mainly ex-dem/2ndhand hifi. Only exceptions were a few cables and tables (look, don't ask how much THEY cost OK? I mean, give a girl a break...).

With 24-bit downloads, until the advent of the very wonderful eClassical no, you couldn't send them back or get a refund, but A) they aren't much more than a CD and B) why would you buy more of them, if you weren't impressed by the first bunch?

Or "a fool and his/her money ?"
one can imagine that one hears things that simply aren't there because one has spent money or said the magic words

though there are some interesting things in Pauline Oliveros's book "Software for people" about the sonic interaction of ultrasonic sounds in terms of audibility !

[MrGongGong]

One thing those of you who trot out this "you only hear it because you've bought it" line always miss is that those of us obsessive/foolish/technomane/(formerly) wealthy enough to buy equipment capable of revealing sonic, and potentially musically-enriching subtleties always audition it at home on a sale-or-return basis; it's how I got most of my mainly ex-dem/2ndhand hifi. Only exceptions were a few cables and tables (look, don't ask how much THEY cost OK? I mean, give a girl a break...).

With 24-bit downloads, until the advent of the very wonderful eClassical no, you couldn't send them back or get a refund, but A) they aren't much more than a CD and B) why would you buy more of them, if you weren't impressed by the first bunch?

I'm not sure what difference that makes ?

And wasn't accusing you of being a fool , only that there is plenty of (oxygen free surgically enhanced copper ) woo about.
Having done plenty of sessions in studios with equipment that's worth more than my house it's very clear that the thing that affects sound quality more than anything else is the listener......

24 bit is a significant advance in some circumstances, I would always now record and edit in 24 bit particularly if i'm making something electroacoustic and am going to do extreme timestretching etc even if the final thing is going to end up on a CD.

[robk]

OK, read it... not a bad piece, but nothing very new there, a few questionable assumptions but broadly correct about dither, 24-bit etc.
But, "you can't always hear what you can measure, and you can't always measure what you can hear".

It's a neverending story really.

I am tempted to go for 24 bit downloads because I like the idea of having better than CD quality. I think they are expensive when so much music on CD can be purchased for £1 or £2 a disc. Reading this article does make me wonder if there is really any point.

I tried some of the online hearing frequency tests yesterday - yes I know they are probably highly inaccurate, depend on my equipment and ambient noise levels - but they suggest that my audible range is between 30Hz and around 13,000Hz. I am not aware that I am hearing less than I used to - it still sounds good but clearly what happens above this level is going to be lost on me. Am I missing the point here as well as the overtones?