coax vs toslink

[Viventis]

It's reasonable to assume that there may be measurable differences, but are they audible? That's the real question. It's different in a pro setting where you don't want to propagate those small errors, they could add up to something audible eventually.

Here is something else to consider. I understand that transmitting any signal through almost any cable can result in attenuation of the signal that is measurable. But the cool part about the digital vs anaolg format is that you have a DAC at the receiving end that interprets the signal before decoding it. The DAC does not need a pristene wave form to interpret 0's and 1's! Think of it like this: My daughter can't find her swim goggles so I check the swimming pool. Whether or not I can see the goggles on the bottom of the pool is a function of the clarity of the water and the depth of the pool. However, if the pool isn't so murky or so deep that I can make out the goggles, I can get the net and fetch them. I don't have to see the googles with perfect clarity, I just need to see them well enough to identify them.

[lovejoy]

I asked a question in the Triode, Digital Enhancement App thread as to whether the app would allow the transmission of 24bit/192kHz through toslink or spdif cables. The response I received is that it would, so long as my receiver's DAC could handle it. Fortunately, my Onkyo 809 has a DAC that does handle 24bit/192kHz.

Will it do 24/192 over USB? My Audiolab will only do up to 24/96 over USB as it's a class 1 USB device, but will do 24/192 over coax. The main problem at the moment is having anything meaningful to listen to at 24/192 - The only recording I currently have at this rate is Fleetwood Mac's Tusk - Great album, but comparing the waveform with the standard Red Book rip shows it to be pretty much identical. Turns out that Tusk was an early digital recording, so there's nothing above 22KHz anyway, so whoever's clever decision it was to release this was either being deliberately misleading or just didn't know what they were doing. Kind of puts you off even bothering with high res content.

[ralphpnj]

Will it do 24/192 over USB? My Audiolab will only do up to 24/96 over USB as it's a class 1 USB device, but will do 24/192 over coax. The main problem at the moment is having anything meaningful to listen to at 24/192 - The only recording I currently have at this rate is Fleetwood Mac's Tusk - Great album, but comparing the waveform with the standard Red Book rip shows it to be pretty much identical. Turns out that Tusk was an early digital recording, so there's nothing above 22KHz anyway, so whoever's clever decision it was to release this was either being deliberately misleading or just didn't know what they were doing. Kind of puts you off even bothering with high res content.

Excellent post! I agree that the main drawbacks to 24/192 (and at times even 24/96) are lack of available and worthwhile recordings, excessively high prices and the "wtf" factor of trying to make something which is standard resolution into high resolution by simply up-converting (which is exactly what was done with the "Tusk" recording).

[trott3r]

Lo,

At 10:25 27/07/2012, you wrote:

>lovejoy wrote:
> > Will it do 24/192 over USB? My Audiolab will only do up to 24/96 over
> > USB as it's a class 1 USB device, but will do 24/192 over coax. The main
> > problem at the moment is having anything meaningful to listen to at
> > 24/192 - The only recording I currently have at this rate is Fleetwood
> > Mac's Tusk - Great album, but comparing the waveform with the standard
> > Red Book rip shows it to be pretty much identical. Turns out that Tusk
> > was an early digital recording, so there's nothing above 22KHz anyway,
> > so whoever's clever decision it was to release this was either being
> > deliberately misleading or just didn't know what they were doing. Kind
> > of puts you off even bothering with high res content.
>
>Excellent post! I agree that the main drawbacks to 24/192 (and at times
>even 24/96) are lack of available and worthwhile recordings, excessively
>high prices and the "wtf" factor of trying to make something which is
>standard resolution into high resolution by simply up-converting (which
>is exactly what was done with the "Tusk" recording).

Agreed its not just high res formats that we want but high res done correctly.

The "loudness wars" (look on youtube if you are not aware of it) also
ruins music.

I got hold of a dvd audio copy of suedes eponymous album and it was heavily
compressed with a lower dynamic range rating than the original CD
release (dr9).

stupid!

Martin N

Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups

[lovejoy]

The "loudness wars" (look on youtube if you are not aware of it) also
ruins music.

I got hold of a dvd audio copy of suedes eponymous album and it was heavily
compressed with a lower dynamic range rating than the original CD
release (dr9).

stupid!

Martin N

Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups

I tend to avoid the vast majority of stuff that carries the word 'remastered' as it seems to be an excuse just to make everything LOUD and completely sap the life and dynamics out of a recording - the only exception to this I can think of has been the Nick Drake albums which were lovingly restored from the master tapes with little tweaking. Last years re-issue of Nirvana's Nevermind was a good case in point. The original never had a problem so why remaster it anyway - Loudness wars, that's why! It's crazy, and these remasters are so completely fatiguing to listen to as there is never any let up in the volume pinning you against the wall. The last Foo Fighters album was another bad example on CD. It's actually a good reason for buying vinyl these days as the mastering tends to be more sympathetic. The Foos album on vinyl is a different beast altogether and can be enjoyed all the way through without feeling like someone is hitting you over the head with a hammer. It has been pretty well documented but I keep mentioning the Red Hot Chilli Peppers output. Take the CD and vinyl of Stadium Arcadium. Absolutely sublime on vinyl having received a sympathetic mastering from Steve Hoffman, but the CD is right up against the ceiling all the way through having been mastered by Vlado Meller, and if I see this guys name on anything I now refuse to buy it. He did even worse with the latest Chilli Peppers CD and it's not only up against the ceiling but there's digital clipping in there too. It's horrible, and it completely destroys the work that a band have done in creating an album. There was a white paper done a little while back that concluded 'LOUDNESS does NOT equal more sales', and for me that's most definitely true, so you wonder why the message hasn't sunk in with so many people yet. Thankfully it's not everyone. There's the odd album appearing here and there which bears the words 'This recording may be a bit quieter than some of your other new CDs, to enjoy it at it's best, just turn the volume up and enjoy the full dynamic range this recording has to offer'.

Amen to that.

[trott3r]

Lo,

At 14:13 27/07/2012, you wrote:

> >
> >
> > The "loudness wars" (look on youtube if you are not aware of it) also
> > ruins music.
> >
> > I got hold of a dvd audio copy of suedes eponymous album and it was
> > heavily
> > compressed with a lower dynamic range rating than the original CD
> > release (dr9).
> >
> > stupid!
> >
> > Martin N
> >
> > Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
> > MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups
>
>I tend to avoid the vast majority of stuff that carries the word
>'remastered' as it seems to be an excuse just to make everything LOUD
>and completely sap the life and dynamics out of a recording


Yes that has been my experience as well.
Sadly some albums are is hard to find which hasnt been ruined by stupid
record companies.

Queens of the stone age songs for the death album is pretty poor on CD.
I see from dr.loudness-war.info that the vinyl version is a lot better so I
suppose I need to buy the album again

snip

>The
>original never had a problem so why remaster it anyway - Loudness wars,
>that's why! It's crazy, and these remasters are so completely fatiguing
>to listen to as there is never any let up in the volume pinning you
>against the wall. The last Foo Fighters album was another bad example on
>CD. It's actually a good reason for buying vinyl these days as the
>mastering tends to be more sympathetic. The Foos album on vinyl is a
>different beast altogether and can be enjoyed all the way through
>without feeling like someone is hitting you over the head with a hammer.
>It has been pretty well documented but I keep mentioning the Red Hot
>Chilli Peppers output. Take the CD and vinyl of Stadium Arcadium.
>Absolutely sublime on vinyl having received a sympathetic mastering from
>Steve Hoffman, but the CD is right up against the ceiling all the way
>through having been mastered by Vlado Meller, and if I see this guys
>name on anything I now refuse to buy it.

I didn't realise different formats had different people mastering them.
I thought the record companies would do things on the cheap and shoe horn
the same master onto vinyl but reduce the dynamic range so the stylus doesn't
jump out of the groove.


> There was
>a white paper done a little while back that concluded 'LOUDNESS does NOT
>equal more sales', and for me that's most definitely true, so you wonder
>why the message hasn't sunk in with so many people yet. Thankfully it's
>not everyone. There's the odd album appearing here and there which bears
>the words 'This recording may be a bit quieter than some of your other
>new CDs, to enjoy it at it's best, just turn the volume up and enjoy the
>full dynamic range this recording has to offer'.
>
>Amen to that.

Not seen that wording over here but then the whole loudness wars has
pretty much made me stop buying new music.

Martin N

Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups

[ralphpnj]

I tend to avoid the vast majority of stuff that carries the word 'remastered' as it seems to be an excuse just to make everything LOUD and completely sap the life and dynamics out of a recording - the only exception to this I can think of has been the Nick Drake albums which were lovingly restored from the master tapes with little tweaking. Last years re-issue of Nirvana's Nevermind was a good case in point. The original never had a problem so why remaster it anyway - Loudness wars, that's why! It's crazy, and these remasters are so completely fatiguing to listen to as there is never any let up in the volume pinning you against the wall. The last Foo Fighters album was another bad example on CD. It's actually a good reason for buying vinyl these days as the mastering tends to be more sympathetic. The Foos album on vinyl is a different beast altogether and can be enjoyed all the way through without feeling like someone is hitting you over the head with a hammer. It has been pretty well documented but I keep mentioning the Red Hot Chilli Peppers output. Take the CD and vinyl of Stadium Arcadium. Absolutely sublime on vinyl having received a sympathetic mastering from Steve Hoffman, but the CD is right up against the ceiling all the way through having been mastered by Vlado Meller, and if I see this guys name on anything I now refuse to buy it. He did even worse with the latest Chilli Peppers CD and it's not only up against the ceiling but there's digital clipping in there too. It's horrible, and it completely destroys the work that a band have done in creating an album. There was a white paper done a little while back that concluded 'LOUDNESS does NOT equal more sales', and for me that's most definitely true, so you wonder why the message hasn't sunk in with so many people yet. Thankfully it's not everyone. There's the odd album appearing here and there which bears the words 'This recording may be a bit quieter than some of your other new CDs, to enjoy it at it's best, just turn the volume up and enjoy the full dynamic range this recording has to offer'.

Amen to that.

You wonder why the same morons who continue to try to sell 40 year old recordings on CD for twice the price of a 2 year old movie on DVD and yet refuse to make these recordings available as low priced lossless downloads (for fear that this will lead to pirated copies becoming available even though pirated copies of lossless digital rips of these CDs are already available) would understand that the Loudness War is actually hurting business???? I believe that the best word most present day record company executives would be "clueless".

I didn't realise different formats had different people mastering them.
I thought the record companies would do things on the cheap and shoe horn
the same master onto vinyl but reduce the dynamic range so the stylus doesn't
jump out of the groove.

You are confusing dynamic range with overall loudness. The problem with most modern remasters of popular music recordings (I say "popular music" since jazz and classical music have so far mostly been spared from adverse affects of the Loudness War) is that there is way too little dynamic range and too much overall loudness. Dynamic range is the difference between the loudest and quietest passages on a recording. A recording with little dynamic range means that all music is at almost the same loudness and becomes the musical equivalent of TYPING EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS! The use of dynamic range compression (which is what the Loudness War is all about) has been going on for many, many years in television and radio broadcasting for various different reasons (quiet passages can sound like silence while listening to a car radio or a loud advertisement will stand out from the quieter levels of the program audio) but it only relatively recently that this type of dynamic range compression has been applied to the actual recordings themselves.

Back to your statement all the record companies would need to do to use the overly compressed CD master for a vinyl issue is lower the overall volume so that "the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove". However the record would then sound as horrible as the CD and the dynamic range would still be almost nonexistent, i.e. there would be little volume difference between the loud and quiet passages.

[trott3r]

Lo,

At 19:28 30/07/2012, you wrote:

>lovejoy wrote:
> > I tend to avoid the vast majority of stuff that carries the word
> > 'remastered' as it seems to be an excuse just to make everything LOUD
> > and completely sap the life and dynamics out of a recording - the only
> > exception to this I can think of has been the Nick Drake albums which
> > were lovingly restored from the master tapes with little tweaking. Last
> > years re-issue of Nirvana's Nevermind was a good case in point. The
> > original never had a problem so why remaster it anyway - Loudness wars,
> > that's why! It's crazy, and these remasters are so completely fatiguing
> > to listen to as there is never any let up in the volume pinning you
> > against the wall. The last Foo Fighters album was another bad example on
> > CD. It's actually a good reason for buying vinyl these days as the
> > mastering tends to be more sympathetic. The Foos album on vinyl is a
> > different beast altogether and can be enjoyed all the way through
> > without feeling like someone is hitting you over the head with a hammer.
> > It has been pretty well documented but I keep mentioning the Red Hot
> > Chilli Peppers output. Take the CD and vinyl of Stadium Arcadium.
> > Absolutely sublime on vinyl having received a sympathetic mastering from
> > Steve Hoffman, but the CD is right up against the ceiling all the way
> > through having been mastered by Vlado Meller, and if I see this guys
> > name on anything I now refuse to buy it. He did even worse with the
> > latest Chilli Peppers CD and it's not only up against the ceiling but
> > there's digital clipping in there too. It's horrible, and it completely
> > destroys the work that a band have done in creating an album. There was
> > a white paper done a little while back that concluded 'LOUDNESS does NOT
> > equal more sales', and for me that's most definitely true, so you wonder
> > why the message hasn't sunk in with so many people yet. Thankfully it's
> > not everyone. There's the odd album appearing here and there which bears
> > the words 'This recording may be a bit quieter than some of your other
> > new CDs, to enjoy it at it's best, just turn the volume up and enjoy the
> > full dynamic range this recording has to offer'.
> >
> > Amen to that.
>
>You wonder why the same morons who continue to try to sell 40 year old
>recordings on CD for twice the price of a 2 year old movie on DVD and
>yet refuse to make these recordings available as low priced lossless
>downloads (for fear that this will lead to pirated copies becoming
>available even though pirated copies of lossless digital rips of these
>CDs are already available) would understand that the Loudness War is
>actually hurting business???? I believe that the best word most present
>day record company executives would be "clueless".

They still are holding on to the 80s and early 90s model of them acting
as a monopoly.



>trott3r wrote:
> > I didn't realise different formats had different people mastering them.
> > I thought the record companies would do things on the cheap and shoe
> > horn
> > the same master onto vinyl but reduce the dynamic range so the stylus
> > doesn't
> > jump out of the groove.
>
>You are confusing dynamic range with overall loudness.

Yes you are correct i used the wrong word there.


>The problem with
>most modern remasters of popular music recordings (I say "popular music"
>since jazz and classical music have so far mostly been spared from
>adverse affects of the Loudness War) is that there is way too little
>dynamic range and too much overall loudness. Dynamic range is the
>difference between the loudest and quietest passages on a recording. A
>recording with little dynamic range means that all music is at almost
>the same loudness and becomes the musical equivalent of TYPING
>EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS! The use of dynamic range compression (which is
>what the Loudness War is all about) has been going on for many, many
>years in television and radio broadcasting for various different reasons
>(quiet passages can sound like silence while listening to a car radio or
>a loud advertisement will stand out from the quieter levels of the
>program audio) but it only relatively recently that this type of dynamic
>range compression has been applied to the actual recordings themselves.
>
>Back to your statement all the record companies would need to do to use
>the overly compressed CD master for a vinyl issue is lower the overall
>volume so that "the stylus doesn't jump out of the groove". However the
>record would then sound as horrible as the CD and the dynamic range
>would still be almost nonexistent, i.e. there would be little volume
>difference between the loud and quiet passages.


Yes that was my point it will sound just as bad.
My point is i would expect the record company to go with what is cheapest
which would be to reduce the loudness to make it work on vinyl.

anyhow we agree despite more poor choice of words.

Martin

Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups

[ralphpnj]

They still are holding on to the 80s and early 90s model of them acting
as a monopoly.

I think at this point it is the iTunes store that is closer to a monopoly than any of the record companies.

Yes that was my point it will sound just as bad.
My point is i would expect the record company to go with what is cheapest
which would be to reduce the loudness to make it work on vinyl.

anyhow we agree despite more poor choice of words.

Martin

No problem and I am very glad that you were not offended my somewhat preachy tone. My years of writing as an engineer has led me to be as exact as possible in my choice of words.

[trott3r]

Lo,

At 23:03 30/07/2012, you wrote:

>trott3r wrote:
> > They still are holding on to the 80s and early 90s model of them acting
> > as a monopoly.
>
>I think at this point it is the iTunes store that is closer to a
>monopoly than any of the record companies.

Yes I suppose so.
I tend to forget about Apples ecosystem since i dont like lock-ins ;
thus Apple never appealed to me.

But i was thinking more along the lines of Hi Resolution music.
The record companies believe they are the only source for a band
and so they can shovel us poor sound quality and we will swallow it.

But with a bit of googling consumers are realising that they can get a 24bit
96khz high res rip from vinyl that hasn't been butchered by the loudness
wars. Thus the monopoly falls (at least for older music).

Martin

Running MorphOS v3.1 (July 2012) on a PowerPC Powerbook, Moderator of
MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups