CD verses Vinyl

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355335379' post='1897153']
Are you talking about me?
[/quote]

Well I couldn't be arsed to go back thru the last 9 pages, so based on your last post I could find which included this
[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355233449' post='1895678']You are an audiophile Si, because you know the difference between 320 and 128 kbps, while most people couldn't care less.
You are an audiophile because [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]issues with the reproduction prevent you from enjoying music and I find that a little bit sad.[/font][/color][/quote]
....... then I'd say "No, I wasn't".

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "issues with reproduction prevent Si from enjoying music" unless he's said so somewhere; I'd be horrified if that was the case........
but Si did a cracking job on the Kit Richardson EP* - I'm, still playing it months after getting it - (which is rare for me). What concerns me now - after listening to it, is whether Si did his stuff thru ice cold calculation, playing by all the rules and with all his text books & web-sites open beside him to refer to, rather than by purely listening to it & by intuition knowing what it needed.

* assuming I've got the right person without trawling back thru page after page?

[51m0n]

Damned good question Stu!

Apologies all the for the War and Peace scale post....

How about I mix by ice cold intuition?

In order to be able to use all the tools at my disposal to create a mix that is emotive and compelling I have to know how all those tools work, and what they can do, what they are good at, when its appropriate to use them. I know why I use every single tool that I do use. I have learnt through watching others, listening constantly, reading the theory (obsessively), discussing with real masters of the art on forums and in person, trying and failing and succeeding, and going back to what happened when and trying to understand exactly what I did, and did not achieve and how I could make it better. Like anyone who is desperately fascinated with an art/science its taken a very long time to get to the poitn where I dont have to refer to a text book or website to achieve any of what I do, its just 'in my hands, or under my skin'. I've been fascinated for more than 20 years with the subject of recording. I have learnt some, I know people who have forgotten more than I'll ever know. Its like jazz, you have to learn all that theory so well that you don't think about it at all when playing it if you are going to be any good at it at all (disclaimer, I cant play jazz for love nor money!).

But here's the real thing, I cant remember who said it but its gospel, "The best piece of gear in a great mix is the song". A mix is a production of the song, and an arrangement of that song's performance. It is all about the music. I can enjoy terrible reproduction of a great song, I enjoy great reproduction of the same song so much more that it is palpable. I can't stand the best reproduction of a rubbish song because, the all important thing is, does the song move me?

I can't do a great job mixing a song that I can't stand, I can do an ok job on a song I think is OK. A great song will get the very best out of me.

When I get to actually mix something though I'm not in that theoretical headspace. I am analysing and choosing routes to go intuitively at all times. I react to how the track makes me feel at an emotional level, and try and bring the core of that out of the song each time. I never ever think in terms of the audio theory really now in the act of mixing, so if I want a guitar to pop more, but I don't want to change its tone, I would intuitively reach for a compressor to enhance the transient a bit to give it the impression of being more in your face, yet at the same time remaining the same sound. I wouldn't think about the settings in any theoretical way, I just set them where they do the thing that sounds right, which is where the settings need to be to get the result I need to make the guitar more immediate and to convey the impression that I feel the instrument in that track needs to convey. It just so happens I also can relate what those setting would be in terms of the controls of the device and why, because I really have studied compressors.

To do this mixing thing as intuitively as possible I personally have to rigorously (as rigorously as I can) separate the session into several sections, initial listen (throw those faders up and see what hits me, listen to whats there as rough as you like a few times - get a 'hit', a feel for the piece), organisation and tidying up (getting all the groups and channels organised, sorting out gain staging everywhere, last thing I want to think about is making sure the level isn't too hot later on, making some rough guesses on the effects I'll need, cleaning up any obvious unwanted noise), blocking in the mix (getting some proper levels carving out the gash from tracks with eq, trying to get the sounds basically right with whatever tools I need to use), then I usually take a break. That's all the housekeeping uncreative boring crap done (thank goodness), I need to come back at it fresh for the good stuff....

Now all of that may take anywhere between 1 and 8 hours work (depends on the tracking, the number of tracks, the complexity of the textures). And I'm left in a place where I could run off a mix and usually it will be a pretty vanilla mix, it will sound clean and tidy, but the levels wont be right everywhere, there will be a lack of 'mojo' quite often, the band would hear it and in most cases quite like it but be looking for more. Its sort of a demo of the mix to be, not yet fully formed.

This is where the creative bit comes in, I like to have found an 'in' by now a thing I can use to pull a listener along, to tie everything together, I don't know, some spark of a cool idea I can use to make the song somehow 'more'. On Little Toy Soldiers it was the dotted note delay on the drums, and then the reverse snares IIRC. It just pops into my head as something to take the mix beyond just a simple reproduction all cleaned up sorted and into the realm of a bit of a production, something a bit more fab than you would normally get live. It can be something very subtle or really in your face, and I hate 'inventing' something out of thin air, it has to be entirely driven by the song and the performance, I don't add new parts, although I do take parts out if they aren't serving the song.

This is all intuition. Building these parts of a mix vary but could easily take more than another 4 or 5 hours. This is the key bit this is what makes a mix sound special - and its sometimes (more often than not) sooooo subtle, that people wouldn't know it were there unless it was taken away.

There is absolute level refinement all the time, and balance and panning is finalised throughout. Sometimes I'll just find I've gone down a dead end and back waaaay up and go down a different route (happened a lot with Kit, especially with the drums on Little Toy Soldiers, that was truly epic!)

Eventually its just all done, I cant polish it any more, I cant take anything out or add anything in without disturbing the way the song flows through its sections and makes me feel. If the musicians hate it now, I'm doomed

Its all intuition. Every bit if it. Driven by the emotional response I feel with every single instrument together and alone. But its only possible because I have studied what the tools do, and how they work. And I'm still learning, daily, new ideas, new tricks to get more out of a song to present to a listener. The bigger the arsenal, the easier it is to riff with the material and just create something.

The hope is that the result is at least good every time, and occasionally I can pull off something that's really great, a mix that you don't hear at all, but that enhances the pleasure of anyone who hears the song, every time they hear it....

Sorry again for the probably excruciating level of pretentious sounding twaddle in that post....

[Mornats]

I've totally missed most of this discussion (other than this last page) but read a bit of 5imon's posts and went off to listen to the Kit Richardson tracks. So just wanted to say that the bass on You Always Did sounds just perfect to me. I'd love to get my bass sounding like that!

[51m0n]

Cheers!

It was a lovely bass tone to begin with - I just fit it in the mix right.

Look anyone unsure of how digital works vs analogue - in fact if you even think you know all about it, this video is still worth watching...

http://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1355355027' post='1897448']
the Kit Richardson tracks. So just wanted to say that the bass on You Always Did sounds just perfect to me. I'd love to get my bass sounding like that![/quote]

Yeah, but ............................................... it would have sounded better on vinyl, hence this thread!

[flyfisher]

Interesting what Si said about the effect the song itself has on our quality tolerances. A US friend of mine has a collection of wax cylinder recordings and, as you'd expect, the fidelity leaves much to be desired, but it's a strangely compelling and enjoyable listening experience because you're aware of how those long-dead musicians have been preserved.

Much the same as listening to the few original Robert Johnson recordings.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355392564' post='1897643']
Yeah, but ............................................... it would have sounded better on vinyl, hence this thread!
[/quote]

Coffee -> keyboard....

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355395933' post='1897728']
Coffee -> keyboard....


[/quote]

........................

[Mornats]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355392564' post='1897643']
Yeah, but ............................................... it would have sounded better on vinyl, hence this thread!
[/quote]

Lol. But here's a question. Assuming that you prefer vinyl over CD (please correct me if I'm wrong, or take this as hypothetical), would you sacrifice quality (assuming again that you perceive digital to be a lower quality than analogue) for the chance of being able to instantly find and listen to a self-published artist that you found out you really loved listening to? Or in other words, would you still prefer vinyl over the fantastic experience of finding music by unsigned artists on Soundcloud and the like?

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1355430004' post='1898425']
Lol. But here's question. Assuming that you prefer vinyl over CD (please correct me if I'm wrong, or take this as hypothetical), would you sacrifice quality (assuming again that you perceive digital to be a lower quality than analogue) for the chance of being able to instantly find and listen to a self-published artist that you found out you really loved listening to? Or in other words, would you still prefer vinyl over the fantastic experience of finding music by unsigned artists on Soundcloud and the like?
[/quote]

Hmm, depends what mood I'm in; whether I've just taken a notion to wanting to hear a particular song or album or just want a bit of background noise & then what formats I have it in. I've found some CDs (which will normally depend on age) that are worse sound quality to vinyl I've got so it's not a quality thing, though I do find a lot of vinyl can sound warmer....... like being trapped in a corner of a pub by a stoner who wants to tell me his life-story I tend to glaze over at people who feel they have to incessantly convince folk of the perfection of their science ..... I find it ......... soul-less.............. there will of course be a nostalgia element to it too; but here's a tale........

Last year I went to see Steve Cropper on tour (not so much a hero, but he is a legend) & he mentioned briefly that he had an album coming out, a tribute to the band that inspired him to pick up a guitar. I later found out that you could get the LP for £10 which came with a CD version too, so I got one ordered up. Then "Crop" juggled some of his later tour dates & was soon back not far from me. We drove to the gig & sat watching the sound-check, when he saw us he shouted over "Hey kids!" & I waved the LP at him to get it signed........
"Is that a record?" he shouted, "I didn't even know they were doing that".
The sound-check was abandoned & he came over for a good look, signed it & then told me all about almost every track. We were then invited to join them for dinner, with more stories & then invited to the end-of-tour party, where we were regaled with even more stories (he likes his red wine) about Otis Redding, "Wicked Pickett", Duck etc, at the end of which we swapped email addresses - so hopefully there'll be more of the same next Jan/Feb.

Some how I don't think we'd have got chatting as much if I'd just waved the CD at him.

Nothing whatsoever to do with quality comparisons, but it was a lot of fun.

Oh - and I don't go looking all that much for "new" music. I'm mighty glad of Nige putting up the Kit Richardson links on here & want my name to bagsy a copy of future stuff - and my son is a drummer in an "industrial" band so that's close enough to the edge for me.

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

Still loads to read .( skipped a few pages).
I got a pink triangle table , made by a guy who used to work for them . He died in a tragic acident.
Anyway, the lid broke, and id like a cheap replacement. Are lids the same size?

What i dont/ didnt like about record companies ripping us off; metallica master of puppets - first pressing dreadful. They had to reissue it on double 12" format which is awesome.

When castle records took over sabbaths catalogue, the cds were awful and were probably mastered in a broom cupboard.dreadful !

There are many more examples that you will come up with ,)

[PaulWarning]

been doing a bit of experimenting with different formats and I've come to the conclusion that vinyl can sound better pecisely because it's not got such a wide frequency response, my amp tone controls cut bass at around 100hz and treble at 10khz, turning them down when listening to digital stuff initially sounds a bit dull and lifeless but I soon realised it was easier to listen to, and I can hear what the bass player's up to better because it cuts the low frequency around bass drum etc, a bit like the advice that is constantly given on here about cutting through the mix, low mids are your friend.
Having said all that my hearing is shot so it might be a load of bollocks

[Leonard Smalls]

Funnily enough my phono stage has no rumble filters, or attentuation at any higher frequency, and it still sounds subjectively more pleasing!
CD sounds pretty good as well, but after all, I'd prefer to hear badly recorded, poorly reproduced good music than extreme hifi music (like you'd hear on the Linn and Naim labels) on the world's most expensive stereo...
It's the music I'm listening to, not the hifi!

[bigjohn]

Comparing vinyl to cd on the same HiFi isn't really playing fair. The signal chains are different. The vinyl chain has a phono-preamp. It's like plugging a passive bass into a nice pre-amp and saying "wow, listen to this, it's alive with these sounds and dynamics", then comparing it with an active bass plugged straight into a poweramp and saying it sounds dull and crap.

Have a listen to a decent HiFi with a decent DAC and compare that with vinyl. The digital stuff sounds fine then.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1355492525' post='1899153']
It's the music I'm listening to, not the hifi!
[/quote]
Couldn't agree more, used to go in a pub with a jukebox and Suspicious minds sounded amazing, no top end but I loved listening to it on that crappy jukebox

[Leonard Smalls]

[quote name='bigjohn' timestamp='1355493516' post='1899180']
Comparing vinyl to cd on the same HiFi isn't really playing fair. The signal chains are different. The vinyl chain has a phono-preamp. It's like plugging a passive bass into a nice pre-amp and saying "wow, listen to this, it's alive with these sounds and dynamics", then comparing it with an active bass plugged straight into a poweramp and saying it sounds dull and crap.

Have a listen to a decent HiFi with a decent DAC and compare that with vinyl. The digital stuff sounds fine then.
[/quote]

The output from a phono stage is line level (give or take, depending on the phono stage). All the phonostage does is take a low level signal from a cartridge, boost it to line level and apply (hopefully) accurate RIAA equalisation. Some phono stages have variable input impedance to better match cart types, but otherwise it gives out an analogue signal at about the same level as the analogue output of a DAC. It's not like a graphic equaliser with variable frequency adjustments - though you can buy phono stages with variable (fixed) RIAA equalisation to match older standards.
An active bass has boost and cut available, whereas a passive one only has cut...
And talking of decent DACs, mine's an Advantage; they don't exist any more, but check out Bladelius hifi to find out what it's like - same designer. It sounds better than a Wadia 861 if that means owt! Even though it sounds excellent there's still a tiny bit (subjectively!) missing compared to vinyl - at least to my jaded and no doubt deafened ears.

[Dingus]

[quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1355508693' post='1899497']
The output from a phono stage is line level (give or take, depending on the phono stage). All the phonostage does is take a low level signal from a cartridge, boost it to line level and apply (hopefully) accurate RIAA equalisation. Some phono stages have variable input impedance to better match cart types, but otherwise it gives out an analogue signal at about the same level as the analogue output of a DAC. It's not like a graphic equaliser with variable frequency adjustments - though you can buy phono stages with variable (fixed) RIAA equalisation to match older standards.
An active bass has boost and cut available, whereas a passive one only has cut...
And talking of decent DACs, mine's an Advantage; they don't exist any more, but check out Bladelius hifi to find out what it's like - same designer. It sounds better than a Wadia 861 if that means owt! Even though it sounds excellent there's still a tiny bit (subjectively!) missing compared to vinyl - at least to my jaded and no doubt deafened ears.
[/quote]

My experience has been that some phono stages sound much better than others . Just like any other dedicated audio component , phono stages can sound radically different to one another depending on the design . Hence the importance of a thoughtfully selected phono stage in any serious vinyl-based system .

[Leonard Smalls]

Aye, obviously RIAA implementation is in the eye of the product designer!
I tried a number by the likes of Tom Evans, Whest, Sutherland, Lehmann, Brinkmann and EAR. The EAR valve one won for me...

[Dingus]

[quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1355510933' post='1899537']
Aye, obviously RIAA implementation is in the eye of the product designer!
I tried a number by the likes of Tom Evans, Whest, Sutherland, Lehmann, Brinkmann and EAR. The EAR valve one won for me...
[/quote]

When I used to play a lot of vinyl back in the 90s I had a Linn Axis / Akito /K9 turntable and the sound came on considerably when I upgraded from an Arcam Alpha 6 to an Audiolab 8000A that had a first-rate phono stage considering it was a fairly humble integrated amp . I heard the Linn Linto phono stage in a Linn LP12 system at a local shop and it was amazing . A top class phono amp is another cost to factor a really good vinyl setup .

Edited December 14, 2012 by Dingus

[leroydiamond]

Got a linn Turntable and Primare CD. My Hi Fi sounds at its best when playing an album called "Live in London" (Ace Records) on vinyl recorded in Dublin castle,London back in the 80's. Recorded directly on to 2 tracks. Sounds stunning!. No fancy production techniques, low budget and really top class sound.

Edited December 16, 2012 by leroydiamond

[Dingus]

[quote name='leroydiamond' timestamp='1355655286' post='1900902']
Got a linn Turntable and Primare CD. My Hi Fi sounds at its best when playing an album called "Live in London" (Ace Records) on vinyl recorded in Dublin castle,London back in the 80's. Recorded directly on to 2 tracks. Sounds stunning!. No fancy production techniques, low budget and really top class sound.
[/quote]

Direct to two track recordings can sound very good in hifi terms ; a lot of jazz albums from the 50s and early 60s were recorded that way and because of the tracks are allotted a very wide aperture of analogue tape seeing as there are only two tracks to accomodate you get a very good and musically- pleasing sound quality as a result .

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355663515' post='1901035']
Direct to two track recordings can sound very good in hifi terms ; a lot of jazz albums from the 50s and early 60s were recorded that way and because of the tracks are allotted a very wide aperture of analogue tape seeing as there are only two tracks to accomodate you get a very good and musically- pleasing sound quality as a result .
[/quote]

you pretty much nailed it . Its very musically pleasing indeed. Just dont find CD musically as pleasing

Edited December 16, 2012 by leroydiamond

[leroydiamond]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1355430004' post='1898425']
Lol. But here's a question. Assuming that you prefer vinyl over CD (please correct me if I'm wrong, or take this as hypothetical), would you sacrifice quality (assuming again that you perceive digital to be a lower quality than analogue) for the chance of being able to instantly find and listen to a self-published artist that you found out you really loved listening to? Or in other words, would you still prefer vinyl over the fantastic experience of finding music by unsigned artists on Soundcloud and the like?
[/quote]
yea

[jimbobothy]

On my setup the albums I have on vinyl and cd tend to sound better on vinyl, however I don't tend to listen too much vinyl as cds are easier, err and cds are ten a penny compared to some vinyl! . However saying all that if I really dig an album on cd I'll try and find it on vinyl, but I've gotta [i][b]really [/b][/i]dig it lol!!

Edited December 16, 2012 by jimbobothy

[Leonard Smalls]

Just discovered this long but quite interesting article, which may shed a small amount of light on why vinyl can sound better than cd, especially with amplifiers with high signal:noise:

[font=georgia,serif]High Resolution: Is It Really Necessary?
A white paper by Marco Manunta – M2Tech Srl, Italy
*
We’re facing a seemingly unstoppable run towards very high resolution in digital audio: from CD to 96/24, to 192/24 up to 352.8/24 and even 352.8/32, not to mention DSD (2.8MHz/1bit or 5.6MHz/1bit). Considering how good some 44.1/16 systems (CD players or DAC) sound, the question is: do we really need very high resolution, and how high should “high resolution” be?
*
Bit depth
This parameter is maybe the easiest one to evaluate and justify. First, it’s useful remind readers that bit depth defines the signal-to-noise ratio of a digital playback or recording system, through a simple formula:
*
SNR(dB) = 1.76+6.02*N,
*
Where N is the number of bits per sample or bit depth. In a CD-standard system (N=16), SNR is 98.08dB, a 24bit device will allow for 146.24dB. Literature often forgets the 1.76dB constant, so you may find 144.5dB instead of 146.24 and so on.
We can also define a “virtual” bit depth for analog devices and systems, through *the ENOB parameter (Equivalent Number of Bits):
*
ENOB (bits) = (SNRmeasured-1.76)/6.02
*
The ENOB of an amplifier with 105dB measured SNR is 17.15 bits (note that .15 bit has no real meaning).
It’s easy to realize that a digital source delivering true 24 bits resolution connected to a system in which the overall ENOB is, say, 18 bits, is not guaranteed to fully exploit its performance. On the other hand, one may apply the law of balance and say that a digital source with 18 bits resolution (110dB) is sufficient to obtain the best overall performance from that system.
Things are not that easy. First of all, let’s consider the nature of noise in digital systems. Noise is the sum of two contributes: quantization noise and thermal noise. The first one is related to bit depth and is very disturbing for humans ear-brain due to its correlation to the signal (in fact, it is sometimes called “quantization distortion”, rather than quantization noise). The second one is related to the analog circuitry used in the analog-digital and digital-analog boundaries and is generally much more tolerated by human ear-brain due to its total non-correlation with the signal.
Devices, and even systems, in which thermal noise buries quantization noise are generally well-sounding setups.
This explains why we cannot define a specific bit depth as a limit value to judge digital devices and systems: a 14-bit source will probably behave very well in a system in which the amplifier has only 70dB SNR, while it will sound awful in another system in which the amplifier has 100dB SNR. Also, this may explain why CD players with tube output have generally a pleasant sound: tubes are noisier than opamps and even than solid-state, discrete components buffers, thus their thermal noise buries the quantization noise from the conversion IC (I won’t enter the mined field of harmonic composition of tubes’ distortion or biasing issues as it’s beyond our scope).
Conversely, an analog source with an outstanding 125dB SNR driving a 16bit ADC is a waste of money, as the quantization noise of the ADC will be easily heard over the source’s thermal noise, giving a typical “digital” sound. On the contrary, an analog source with 100dB SNR driving a 24bit ADC will give very good results to listening, as the thermal noise of the source will act a dithering with regards to the quantization process, transforming the signal-correlated quantization distortion in a “quasi-thermal” noise which is much more tolerated by our brain.
Things are even more complicated when we have a more complex digital signal chain than a single-step unit. Let’s consider, for example, a CD player with digital volume control. We all know that dithering and noise shaping are necessary to avoid distortion increase when we approach low levels (high attenuation factors). This is due to the fact that the processing engine which does the attenuation (multiply for a number less than one) has generally the same resolution as the incoming signal: to the usual errors due to the finite-resolution mathematic (errors = noise), the final truncation adds a lot of damage, leading to the raise of distortion products. If we measure the effective resolution of a signal passed through a digital volume control, it is generally lower than that of the incoming signal. It’s easy that the quantization noise after the attenuation raises over the system thermal noise. What was a good sounding digital signal before attenuation has become a “digital” sounding one.
Things improve as resolution increases: computational and truncation noise can remain below thermal noise, so that no dithering nor noise shaping are necessary. This is already true with 24-bit systems, and even better with 32-bit systems: even if we use 4, 8 or even 16 bit only to sample noise, that noise helps us to keep the sound good while it travels through our system to the loudspeakers.
Summarizing, I dare to say that bit depth is very important for sound quality, even more than sampling frequency. To test the above “on the field”, take a good 96/24 recording and get a 96/16 version and a 48/24 version using some editing software. Chances are that you will hear little differences between the 96/24 and the 48/24 versions, while you’ll hear a bigger difference between the 96/24 and the 96/16 versions.
*
Sampling frequency
It’s widely known that the ear of a young boy from the countryside (grown far from discos) can easily hear 20kHz, while a mature music lover hardly catches 16kHz. Thus, a digital audio system with an upper frequency limit of 20kHz should be enough to enjoy the real high fidelity. As usual, things are more complicated.
Complex signals contain multiple frequencies which interact to produce intermodulation in all systems in which they travel. Our ear, together with our skull bones, is one of these systems. High frequencies intermodulate to the lower frequency range (for example, a 21kHz and a 22kHz tones can modulate down to 1kHz, well into our audible range). If we record and/or play a recording through a system with 20kHz limit, we miss those tones which should intermodulate into our ear and head, losing some of the original information content (that 1kHz tone which is part of the original signal, even if is produced into our body). Recording professionals may say that no microphone can capture frequencies higher than 40kHz, so this may state the real useful high frequency limit in the recording-playback chain. Even so, this means a minimum sampling frequency of 80kHz (according to Nyquist, the minimum sampling rate to accommodate a certain bandwidth is twice the bandwidth). Standards indicate 88.2 or 96kHz, with a usable bandwidth of 44.1 or 48kHz, respectively.
But there is something more. It’s known by signal processing experts, and absolutely not popularized amongst music lovers, that converting an analog signal into a discrete-time one (as it happens when converting from analog to digital) destroys the phase information in the two top octaves of the resulting spectrum. In a CD-standard digital recording, all phase information are lost from 5.5kHz up to 22kHz, which is the highest frequency present in that recording. This affects mainly harmonics (very few fundamentals are available over 5kHz), disrupting the notes’s envelope. This may explain why different instrument of the same kind recorded on CD’s often sound very similar.
To raise the lower limit of the affected range to 20kHz, we need to record with a bandwidth at least 80kHz, so we need a sampling frequency at least 160kHz. Standards indicate 176.4 or 192kHz, for a usable band of 88.2kHz and 96kHz, respectively.
Then aliasing comes in. Aliasing is a phenomena due to sampling process which must be avoided in order to keep the original sound quality. The only way to do it is low-pass filtering the original analog signal before converting it into digital. This can be problematic when the signal’s upper frequency limit is very close to half the sampling frequency. In this case, a very steep filter (commonly called “brickwall”) is necessary, which is affected by a sever phase rotation down to audible frequencies. This is the case of the CD, in which the upper frequency limit (20kHz) is very close to half the sampling frequency (22.050kHz). In CD-like systems, at least 90dB attenuation must be obtained with a transition band of just 2kHz!
Using higher sampling frequencies means having a larger transition band, thus less steep filters and more gentle phase behaviour, affecting higher frequencies. A 24-bit, 192kHz system handling an audio signal with 20kHz bandwidth can use a transition band of *76kHz to attenuate at least 120dB. This means that a simple 10-pole filter is sufficient. Much better and easier to implement than a 200-poles filter used in CD-like systems! Even better, a 32-bit, 384kHz system may use a 7-pole filter, something which is very similar to the natural band limiting in analog systems.
*
Conclusions
High resolution is not marketing hype. It can help to make a digital system of device sound more similar to an analog one, provided users and experts keep in mind the real meaning and usefulness of having large bit depths and high sampling frequencies.[/font]