|
Posted by Paul S on
02-19-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Another recent post got me wondering (again) about the generic idea of sampling rates, if - and if so, how - increasing sampling rates might improve sound, or at least improve one's chances of getting good sound. In my own case, I have consciously steered toward non-over-sampled, 16-44 "Red Book" CD, because I've yet to hear anything better from CD. As I have described here before, I have really hated all SACD I have been subjected to, to date. A "pro" sound friend brought by a WAV file of some pop music, and that did not really help me hear what's so great about WAV. My friend says he only uses WAV files, and he hates other "stored" digital music (files), such as MP3.
I'm guessing that many - if not most - site habituees listen mainly to "stored" digital music. So, what's up with "stored" digital sound these days, and how have increased sampling rates improved the sound, if one can say this is the case? Are people pleased with "over-sampled" CD, for instance? Are other digital sources with higher sampling rates getting better? Is there any program available in the improved digital media?
My recent rounds (while amp shopping) suggested to me that nothing has changed, unless it's gotten worse. Of course, I expected no better from the "high end"...
Paul S
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-23-2013
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Ric, let's keep the digital cable thread about digital cable and "compare sampling/resolution options" here.
As for my problems with digital sound, again, I have covered these at length in my "Digi Redux" thread, and in Romy's SACD thread. Again, in the Digi Redux thread I lay out my digital compromises and chronical my efforts to "add" Music - via digital sources, converters and tweaks - via redbook CD. Basically, to date, I have found that certain "digital problems" increase as "resolution" is increased, but I cannot tie this specifically to "sampling rates", per se, because I have not yet tried to isolate this as a variable. I was hoping that others had done this and that they would talk intelligently about it if asked specifically.
As for sources in general, I abandoned my dream of "master tape" by the mid 70's, and since then my focus has been on LPs. I do have CDs, and I try to stay alert in case good sound happens by way of digital. Hence this thread. I agree that recordings themselves can be problematic, and I also know that many "up-res" recordings are just re-sampled 16/44. There is A LOT of "legacy" material now in 16/44 that I suspect will never be made better by any further manipulation. However, this does not mean that higher sampling rates or over sampling are worse than 16/44. Rather, I am saying I have not heard anything yet that motivates me to start in with other, higher-res sources and converters, etc. In my dreams, there is a large pool of great material that is rendered and renderable better than my 16/44 CDs that can be swapped, downloaded and/or "streamed" without breaking the bank or losing hair.
Goetz, I do try to glean what I can from available sources. FWIW, I have read the Altmann, and also the Fikus you recommend, albeit not "extensively", and I have no wish to imitate them, despite I agree with some of their observations. More to the point, I don't understand how you mean by these references to answer my questions, which I hoped would draw more direct and directed responses...
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|