What's the diference between 20 bits and 24 bits???

[andy13]

I have an Adcom GCD-750 cd players. It is a 20 bit player. The new players that are coming out are 24 bits. What's the diference? Will a 24 bit player sound better than the 20 bit player? My Adcom has no digital outputs to connect to an outboard DAC. It does have a digital input to use its inboard DAC with other sources. Will I get any benefits from upgrading?

Do you think there is a big diference in lets say the Adcom and the Cambridge Audio 640C Azur?

System:
Adcom GCD-750
Musical Fidelity A3.2 Integrated
Monitor Audio S6 speakers

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have an Adcom GCD-750 cd players. It is a 20 bit player. The new players that are coming out are 24 bits. What's the diference? Will a 24 bit player sound better than the 20 bit player? My Adcom has no digital outputs to connect to an outboard DAC. It does have a digital input to use its inboard DAC with other sources. Will I get any benefits from upgrading?

Do you think there is a big diference in lets say the Adcom and the Cambridge Audio 640C Azur?

System:
Adcom GCD-750
Musical Fidelity A3.2 Integrated
Monitor Audio S6 speakers

The difference between 20bit and 24bit is more dynamic range (120db vs 144db) and a lower noise floor(how images seem to emminate from silence or what reviewers call darkness)

In most hometheater spaces you will not be able to tell the difference because of high ambient levels in the room(noises that interfere with listening)

[RGA]

Not everyone believes more bits are automatically better -- one of the best cd players I have heard is the AN 3.1 no times oversampling cd player and it uses an 18 bit chip which is more costly for them to attain --- Let's just say it's worth auditioning.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not everyone believes more bits are automatically better -- one of the best cd players I have heard is the AN 3.1 no times oversampling cd player and it uses an 18 bit chip which is more costly for them to attain --- Let's just say it's worth auditioning.

RGA,
In these days of 24/96 and DSD why in the hell would anyone want to go back to 16/44.1khz played through a 18 bit DAC with no oversampling? With no oversampling the player is subject to using steep brickwall filters, and we know what happens with those kind of filters.

[kexodusc]

RGA,
In these days of 24/96 and DSD why in the hell would anyone want to go back to 16/44.1khz played through a 18 bit DAC with no oversampling? With no oversampling the player is subject to using steep brickwall filters, and we know what happens with those kind of filters.

What have you done now?

[E-Stat]

What have you done now?

Uh oh. Question the Oracle at AN? Heresy I say!

FWIW, the two best CDPs in my experience, the GamuT CD-1 and the Burmester 969/970, are both 24 bit upsamplers.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Did I offend anyone?

[RGA]

Audio Note doesn't use brickwall filters. They do what they do and IMO what they're doing sounds one helluva lot better. Technically if you tap the player it should skip -- it should exhibit oodles of burst errors among other horrid sounding issues and yet none of that is the case. Actually AN uses different chips in different players due to cost.

I am not here to say they have the absolute right approach --- I can merely say that I have enjoyed listening to cd on their cd players more than anyone elses including my own...they beat to a different drummer for sure and have a different view of sound reproduction --- I suggest you give a complete AN system a shot sometime and add up all the supposedly totally wrong ideas together --- Believe me I have and I shake my head --- it's not supposed to sound that good with all the supposedly wrong ideas. I gave up bothering and that is why I believe in what Peter is doing --- becuase maybe the guy isn't so wrong if music reproduction is the goal.

This is a write-up on why they have done what they have done -- Peter Qvortrup wrote in 1998 so it is a bit dated and his DAC's have improved since then but it still provides an overview -- it is lengthy because it's a bit of a journy story as to why he went to this approach and in hiring help from the noted Andy Grove. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...converter..htm

From Andy Grove
http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/agrovedac.html

There is just a review from the editor of enjoythmusic who gets in plenty of top end dacs and cd players etc. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superio...ionotedac5.htm

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=RGA]
I am not here to say they have the absolute right approach --- I can merely say that I have enjoyed listening to cd on their cd players more than anyone elses QUOTE]

Same for me. I recently bought a used DAC 3.1x simply because, in my system, it made CD's sound more like music. It's connected to an upsampling CDP which was formally used by itself. Obviously, the AN sounds better to my ears than upsampling! I haven't heard the really high end upsampling units, however. Further, my CD's sound better through the AN than they do through my SACD player and they rival many of my SACD's. OTOH, bad recordings still sound awful.

I've whined and moaned about CD sound for years. No more. It still isn't up to par with the best analog or some of my SACD's but, as Peter mentioned, it sure helps to level the playing field.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

RGA,
While you write a great testimonial on AN's products, my problem isn't with the product itself, but redbook CD. While this player may indeed sound pretty good, you cannot squeeze blood out of stone. The redbook sample rate IMO is just no good enough for classical music, not very good at recreating cymbals, mass brass, or strings. The player isn't going to change that.

Playing 16bit audio through a 18bit DAC will not improve the sound one bit. Also in that interview, he does not mention no oversampling, he mentions 1x oversampling. Oversampling is oversampling, whether you do it 1x(which raises the sample rate to 88.2khz) or 8 times(356.2khz sample rate) the purpose create a filter with a more gentle slope. That is what is done with his D/A converter, and what is done in 99 percent of all CD players made in the 90's.

I have never heard AN's cd player, but well recorded and mastered 24/96khz and DSD is audibly better than 16/44.1 done with the same care. So there would be no reason in the world to bother with redbook, or recommend any cd player over DVD-A or SACD, even AN's player.(unless you have a large CD collection, then I would recommend listening to a Krell CD player!)

[musicoverall]

RGA,
So there would be no reason in the world to bother with redbook, or recommend any cd player over DVD-A or SACD, even AN's player.(unless you have a large CD collection, then I would recommend listening to a Krell CD player!)

Agreed. I have a very large collection of redbook CD's. The A/N does a better job of making music from rbcd's (to my ears) that anything I've heard, including any Krell CDP or any SACD player playing rbcd's. I've embraced SACD as well and, no question, it's usually better still.

[RGA]

I'll wait for AN to fix the problems I continually hear with SACD --- The Krell and Levinson cd players IMO are not nearly as good. As Peter said he didn;t like cd either and blamed the medium --- and only bothered with it because recordings were coming out on that medium only. He has a collection now over 70,000 albums -- when SACD has a large database of quality music -- if takes off fully - they'll probably throw the gauntlet down.

BUT CD is king in sales and material available with LP right there. SACD is nothing.

AN DAC's are compatible with 24/96 data.

I don't really have any problem with riding a new format --- but 99% of music is NOT available on the new format and won;t be for AT LEAST another decade. So I would rather have stuff that can get the absolute most out of what is already available --- which is why people are still trying to get more out of Turntables and LP. I have recordings that are on LP that I can't get on CD let alone SACD or DVD audio.

AN CD players are not like other players - There was for the first time in my life going from some good but cheap cd player to an AN that made a vast improvement (of speaker changing like magnitude). Going from a low end Arcam to the best Arcam is subtle or a top Arcam to the big ML's or Linns -- not THAT big of a difference.

The only problem some AN Dacs had was they were not always very compatible with non Audio note amps which caused some issues(Impedence mismatches). That apparently has been addressed.

I can't believe anyone would say there is no reason to bother with redbook cd. SACD is hardly taken off in these parts --- almost no one sells titles, and few places here even sell the machines and then only those dirt cheap Sony and Pioneer pieces of junk...yeah SACD sounds so much better because the cd player in them is made so horrendously bad (probably on purpose) to show a greater "edge."

All that said my next player will have SACD and DVD Audio in it - the people didn;t ask for it -- the manufacturers want to sell it.

[theaudiohobby]

I'll wait for AN to fix the problems I continually hear with SACD -

Are you referring to the repetitive echo problem? , he may yet write an AES paper on this

[theaudiohobby]

While this player may indeed sound pretty good, you cannot squeeze blood out of stone. The redbook sample rate IMO is just no good enough for classical music, not very good at recreating cymbals, mass brass, or strings.

Yep, massed strings and brass are very well served by SACD, however the benefits of hirez are less obvious with solo vocals-heavy music.

[musicoverall]

...yeah SACD sounds so much better because the cd player in them is made so horrendously bad (probably on purpose) to show a greater "edge."

There was a similar argument floating around that the rbcd layer of dual layer discs (SACD being the other layer) were purposefully fiddled with in order to show off the higher resolution format. While this may be true in some cases, I find the CD layer on each of my (6) dual layer discs to be pretty darn good... better through the AN dac than through the SACD player, though. But I have to say the best recordings I own on SACD sound better through the SACD player than the best CD's do through the AN.

I wonder how Peter's technology might sound on SACD??? Time will tell. But that 3.1x is a killer dac! I tolerated CD sound because I found so much music on rbcd that I either couldn't find on LP or couldn't afford if I found it. Now I can do more than tolerate it. I have no major complaints about rbcd anymore or at least no more than I find in the LP, my preferred medium ( until SACD catches fire, anyway!).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't believe anyone would say there is no reason to bother with redbook cd. SACD is hardly taken off in these parts --- almost no one sells titles, and few places here even sell the machines and then only those dirt cheap Sony and Pioneer pieces of junk...yeah SACD sounds so much better because the cd player in them is made so horrendously bad (probably on purpose) to show a greater "edge."

All that said my next player will have SACD and DVD Audio in it - the people didn;t ask for it -- the manufacturers want to sell it.

You are making claims here that are a bit over the top. Maybe in your area SACD is not plentiful, but online you can buy titles, and there are a couple of stores in my area that have pretty good selection of SACD titles.

If a person was truly interested in SACD, they do not have to buy a cheap player that sacrifices good CD playback. Maybe in your area they do, but not everywhere.

SACD sounds better than redbook not because of any flaws in CD playback, but because it take way more samples of the analog. And there is no anti aliasing filter in the signal path. As a matter of fact it removes to audio damaging circuits out of the signal path.

Maybe YOU didn't ask for it, but somebody did and it's here.

Whether AN CD player is better than Krell and Levinson may be a singular opinion shared by yourself(and of course your mentor Peter), but thousands and thousands of Krell and Levinson owners would profoundly disagree with you on that. Singular opinions do not equal fact.

I think the "repetition echo" is generated by the much higher oversampling rates used in DSD, the same is the case I find in 1-bit 16/44 processers when they are compared to 4 or 8 times oversampled multibit processors.

I have been recording using DSD for about 4 years now. I have yet to hear this phenom myself, or yet to hear it reported by other engineers using SACD.

Your argument about title support sounds very familar to what was being said about Dts 4-5 years ago, now you can found Dts soundtracks everywhere. While both DVD-A and SACD have marketing problems right now, technically they are superior to redbook CD in every way. And that includes redbook played through a AN cd player.

[Feanor]

...
The redbook sample rate IMO is just no good enough for classical music, not very good at recreating cymbals, mass brass, or strings. The player isn't going to change that.
...

Sure, I'd say that the typical CD doesn't sound great. And, yes, SACD does typically sound better, (although the highs tend to go overly soft some times). But the very best CDs are more than tolerable to my ear. In practical terms, 90% of the problem has to do with bad recording practice that tries away too hard to get a close-up sound which isn't what you hear in the concert hall.

Vinyl and tubes are popular because they "deburr" raunchy sound from CDs and other medium, not because they are inherently better technologies.

On thing is certain, though: for choice you have to look to CD.

While I know that CD players do sound different from each other, those differences are fairly small. RGA says that the AN DAC differs from other, pricey players by a speaker-like magnitude. Well maybe, but RGA is given to hyperbole.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sure, I'd say that the typical CD doesn't sound great. And, yes, SACD does typically sound better, (although the highs tend to go overly soft some times). But the very best CDs are more than tolerable to my ear. In practical terms, 90% of the problem has to do with bad recording practice that tries away too hard to get a close-up sound which isn't what you hear in the concert hall.

Vinyl and tubes are popular because they "deburr" raunchy sound from CDs and other medium, not because they are inherently better technologies.

On thing is certain, though: for choice you have to look to CD.

While I know that CD players do sound different from each other, those differences are fairly small. RGA says that the AN DAC differs from other, pricey players by a speaker-like magnitude. Well maybe, but RGA is given to hyperbole.

Feanor,
Leave the nit alone dang it! lol.

In practical terms, 90% of the problem has to do with bad recording practice that tries away too hard to get a close-up sound which isn't what you hear in the concert hall.

The problem is not always the engineers fault. Some concert halls just are not recording friendly. In concert halls with very long reverberation times, a recording can sound muddy and indistinct using the popular decca tree/ spaced omni set up. So it becomes necessary to try and dial out the natural acoustics in favor of a close up approach. This is where 24/96khz, 24/192khz, or DSD recording comes in handy.

Close miking a recording destined for 16/44.1khz present some real problems. Dynamic range problems become a real issue, especially for brass. Because you must record as hot as possible for 16bits to get above the noise level at low volumes, you risk hitting or surpassing digital zero during very loud passages.

Concert halls with poor or overly reverberant acoustics totally dulls, and blurs a recording do to overly loud reverberation arriving to the microphones out of phase. This requires that you use the close mike approach to improve clarity and articulation.

Vinyl and tubes are popular because they "deburr" raunchy sound from CDs and other medium, not because they are inherently better technologies.

First let's spread the blame around properly. The anti alising filters were brickwall in nature in earlier A/D and D/A converters in digital recorders and players, so it wasn't always what the engineer did at the console that created problems. Also microphone technology was as slow to change(to take advantage of digital recording lower noise floor and flatter frequency response) once digital recording became popular.

While I know that CD players do sound different from each other, those differences are fairly small. RGA says that the AN DAC differs from other, pricey players by a speaker-like magnitude. Well maybe, but RGA is given to hyperbole

Now this is the biggest understatement of the last one hundred years.

[RGA]

Are you referring to the repetitive echo problem? , he may yet write an AES paper on this

No I have not seen that before. Interesting but not really what I was talking about.

Though I'm not really surprised with his views --- lots were on the perfect sound forever train for cd and now all backpeddle.

I'm not anti SACD which is the way I'm probably coming across --- There is room obviously for lots of technologies. I just have not really been wowed by SACD -- I have been put off by it more times than turned on by it.

But the next DVD player I get I'll make sure has it.

Sir Terrence --- Regarding the argument over Krell/Levinson Audio Note. Well this is obviously going to be subjective --- a lot of people own Audio Note CD players and DACs People will like what they like...I have heard some of them over the years and I can only go by based of what I hear.

Peter Qvortrup already knows he's widely attacked in this industry for his approaches --- c'est la vie.

[RGA]

Well there are many different speakers that don't differ THAT much. Hyperbole -- from people who were not in the room with me when I was auditioning? Hmm.

Your loss.

[Feanor]

...
Now this is the biggest understatement of the last one hundred years.

Good information and insight.

No doubt it's more convenient for engineers to close-mic than find a good hall, then find good performer and mic placement.

Thanks for you comments about the issues of the digital recording process and playback.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good information and insight.

No doubt it's more convenient for engineers to close-mic than find a good hall, then find good performer and mic placement.

Thanks for you comments about the issues of the digital recording process and playback.

Feanor,
Sometimes cost is the issue, not that engineers don't want to look for a good recording hall. There are other issues to deal with.

1. Can I get the hall on the date I booked the orchestra to record?
2. Can I get the orchestra on the date I setup for recording in said hall?
3. What is the labor cost(union) for this particular recording project?
4. How much does it cost to rent this hall(the less demand for the hall, the cheaper it is. Although the more expensive, in demand ones have the best acoustics)
5. What is my budget for this project?
6. Can I stay under(or at)budget at said hall with labor cost, orchestra costs(talent pay)?
7. How much will I have for post production?

And this is just a few of the consideration it takes to finance a live recording in a good hall.

Sometimes you just have to pick a mediocre hall, and adjust your recording technique to suite that particular halls acoustics. Everything is a trade off based on costs.

Engineers rarely get to make any of these choices unless they are also the producer. The producer makes all of the pertanent decision, and most of the time the sound engineer has to adjust to that decision.

So you can see, there are a ton of decisions that the sound engineer gets no part of, so it is not just the guy triming knobs and setting up mikes that determines the quality of a recording. Let's face it, the room is half the equation. If it is compromised, then everything else behind it will be also. The record company sets the budget, the producer has to stay in that budget, and the sound engineer has to make the best out of whatever decisions are made.