Damn, geoffkait, atdavid is going to win this. Until now, you were untouchable in posting the same thing over and over. He is breathing behind your neck. Step up your game. You do not want to be outdone in something you trademarked. Give us some directionality, freezing, and.......was there anything else?
Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?
It's really difficult to compare resolutions with different masterings, delivery methods, sources, etc. I have hundreds of HI-rez files (dsd, hi bit rate PCM, etc). I have to say that even 24/44 is probably revealing the best a recording has to offer. Obviously, recording formats, methods, etc all play a huge role. I'm not talking preferred sources like vinyl, sacd, etc. I'm talking about the recordings themselves.
Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD.
Opinions?
Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD.
Opinions?
169 responses Add your response
atdavid There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies. >>>>>Emphasis on “to my knowledge.” Never is a very long time. Nevertheless, I think you would have been more convincing if you had said, “never ever ever.” |
I have no opinion/knowledge about technicalities of high resolution but did notice that some recordings (SACDs and one 24/96 download in my case) do seem to sound consistently better. Could it be that mastering, or whatever other step before the actual final product, is better in those cases? In other words, when knowing that they are working on high resolution product, do engineers do a better job so it finally translates into better-sounding recording for me while not directly related to the sampling/resolution numbers? In the end, I end up with an impression that all those higher numbers mattered while it was really care that went into it? I hope it is not too much out of the thread topic. |
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies. While this can be shown to occur environmentally, as we are talking a playback system, the playback, if the goal is accuracy, should never add something at playback that was not there at recording. The question, is, should we avoid the potential for euphonics, for the sake of technical accuracy? Technical accuracy shuns ultrasonic modulation to audible frequency. That doesn't mean that some (or even a lot) of people won't like it, even if it is near impossible to control. Even allowing that as a creative control is warranted. I think on balance 24/96 makes sense, even if not technically warranted by current research. So back to the ops question, Yes, 24/96, properly implemented appears to be all we need, and anything higher carries no benefit. |
Indeed there are numerous problems with this AES paper and one of them is raised in the discussion: how can one train for unknown causes? The author’s answer is not convincing to me. https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591 Metaresearch can also be burdened with a publication bias; the positive verifications of a hypothesis are more likely to be published than the negative ones. The author writes "The effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect". In the statistical analysis the bias can easily outweigh such observations. Finally, the microscopical population that can hear slightly above 20khz (most adults cannot above 16kHz) is easily served by the Nyquist limit of 22,05 kHz. Anything higher can exacerbate the ultrasonics intermodulation. If reason ruled, all cars should have a factory speed limit of 70mph. But this would impinge on personal liberties, right? Fortunately, in audiophile audio there is no collateral damage, other than that to the wallet and to the ears of an odd dog. |
Going purely based on research evidence, the evidence suggests that Redbook is not sufficient, but 24/96 is: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296 The paper is not perfect (nor the studies it references) and even its justification for 24/96 is quite weak, but with rapidly shrinking storage/bandwidth costs, there is not a lot of reason not to standardize on 24/96. Somewhere I have a link that showed slightly better timing discrimination in some subjects, with a bandwidth just slightly over 20KHz, but virtually no benefit to going much higher than this. This would also suggest Redbook may not be perfect for everyone, but 24/96 would cover everyone. You can always take away information at the playback stage if you are worried about distortion at >20KHz. |
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html 44.1/16 is enough for any stage in the signal chain, even more so at the playback. Some oversampling at the mastering/AD/DA conversion -sure. 24 bit is because of lazy/sloppy engineers. Good recording/mastering is key. The above article by good old Monty still holds. Human ears and the the sampling theorem haven’t evolved over the past couple of years. |
Abraxalito , I agree though my suggestion a few comments back was ignored , lol , regarding Tonian Labs recordings which are by far the most realistic sounding percussion recordings I’ve heard to date , Hi-res streaming , DVD audio , HDCD and what have you , ive listened to countless excellent recordings, with some of the very best talked about in audio media and online that come close to Tonian labs 16/44 recordings but so far no equals . Borrow or buy a copy and listen for yourself. |
16/44.1 can be amazing.Agreed, @brainlucey 24/44.1 is all any human can hear IF done well.Perhaps, but Charles Hansen noted that 4X sample rates greatly free filter options for playback. Thanks for your post. I am still SMH at the Computer Audiophile knuckle heads that taunted and blocked your participation there. You had a lot of good stuff to share with the community. |
@brianlucey, Thanks for the input! Great to have someone with hands on experience chime in here. "1. Mastering and production are most of it. You’re playing in the margins for subjective enjoyment NOT for better quality with SRC" (sample rate converters) "5. The NATIVE SAMPLE RATE of the mastering session is the BEST quality. Everything else is marketing and ego. Period." Hopefully these anti-business model comments wont get you thrown out of the mastering union. Just joking. Great website. Wow! http://magicgardenmastering.com/ |
@brianlucey It’s great to get feedback from a mastering engineer on this. Thank you! Is Pacific Microsonics the company that did HDCD in the 90s, which later sold to Microsoft? The Linn Sondek LP12 and Arcam FMJ23 (with Ring DAC) are the players I have that are HDCD compatible. Some of my favorite sounding albums have been HDCD. “Wrecking Ball” by Emmylou Harris and “Sea Change” by Beck are two that come to mind. Amazing music and excellent recordings! |
I’m happy to read so many come to the truth 1. Mastering and production are most of it. You’re playing in the margins for subjective enjoyment NOT for better quality with SRC 2. Modest to high end DAs are all very good. Flavors of good to great. Hardware matters more than SR. 3. 16/44.1 can be amazing. 24/44.1 is all any human can hear IF done well. 4. The real issue in AD quality is not the SR it is the converter hardware. Filters. Analog path. Clocking. Power supply. Etc. These are the key. I master daily at 24/44.1 using Pacific Microsonics. Would be a $70,000 AD today. I can get a $200 AD for 192. Which sounds better ? 5. The NATIVE SAMPLE RATE of the mastering session is the BEST quality. Everything else is marketing and ego. Period. www.magicgardenmastering.com |
I get why the industry pushes so called Hi-res , HD , MQA and what have you , their honest right ? I mean all this for the love of music in a modern repackaged form. What makes 50 plus year old recordings let alone a recording made 5 years ago Hi-Resolution , marketing. I enjoy the convenience of streaming as much as the next guy and my favourite CDs ripped I enjoy them more now then I ever have at any other time do to a much better digital front end. Finally I mentioned above some recent recordings done by Tonian Labs , the overall quality and stunning realism of these recordings fly in the face of everything offered today in these repackaged forms though many of the known uncompressed recordings I’ve listened to some come close however none so far equal Tony Mansians recordings and I’m still looking. We have what we have and the industry will do what it’s best at ,keep selling . |
if you’re saying you prefer Hi-res to standard red book then surely you would have to compare like with like.I started with 24/192 files and used dBPoweramp to make copies at 16/44, 24/44, 24/96. I made a few mistakes at first but then successfully distinguished 16/44 and 24/44 ten times in a row at which point I was satisfied that I could tell the difference. But my ability to distinguish the various sample rates with 24-bit files was no better than flipping a coin. YMMV. |
@beetlemania, "In blind testing with foobar "comparator", I could reliably distinguish 24/44 from 16/44 but not 24/44 from either 24/96 or 24/192. So, I am a fan of 24-bit files!’ If you’re attempting to generalise then that’s a hugely iconoclastic statement to make. I’d say it’s amazing even - given that some of us struggle to hear the difference between (like for like) 192 kbps and 320 kbps files! Since it’s easy enough to rip the same track to 128/192/320kbps comparisons are easy whether via headphone playback or burning to CD. Certainly worth a go before investing in High-res downloads. Of course if you prefer the mastering which may be unique to high-res files then that’s a different matter, but if you’re saying you prefer Hi-res to standard red book then surely you would have to compare like with like. As far as we know it’s not humanly possible to ’reliably distinguish’ distinguish anything above Red Book CD. Or is it? |
In blind testing with foobar "comparator", I could reliably distinguish 24/44 from 16/44 but not 24/44 from either 24/96 or 24/192. So, I am a fan of 24-bit files! Still, I like the idea of higher sample rate, so 24/96 seems like a good standard. Moreover, the higher sampling rates offer greater choices in playback filtering: On the other hand, by the time you get to quad-rate sampling (176.4 kHz or 192 kHz), the compromises are practically non-existent. One can have flat frequency response to 40 kHz or 50 kHz, and still have a filter with little or no ringing (in the case of the moving-average filter). |
Funny anytime I want to dazzle the crap out of someone I put on one of Tony Minasians’s of Tonian Labs recordings . Usually Drums & Bells , 15 seconds into the first cut they are usually absolutely dumb founded commenting never listened to anything recorded sound so realistic. Whats so special about these recorderings , nothing other then some modifications to his impressive collection of recording microphones these recordings are shocking realistic sounding to say the least . For $20.00 listen for yourself , Tonianlabs.com |
I have a different angle on this topic. I have the Audio Note DAC5 and have had several top DSD dacs and high rez PCM dacs in my system as well. The DAC5 is a NOS dac and can take up to 24/192 with the latest receiver chip. My finding is that on redbook or natively recorded higher rez it is superior to any oversampling dac I have encountered. DSD natively recorded has a the edge as well over oversampling dacs but the DAC5 is simply much more magical on redbook vs redbook through the DSD dac. Native DSD has a lot going for it and I feel it also sounds free of the OS artifacts but I have not encountered a DSD dac that competes with the DAC5 or the "Killer Dac" Every oversampling dac I have heard has some artifact that I hear now that I have heard the NOS multibit and DSD dac's . My observation is that NOS 16/44 is enough to give goosebumps in the best of systems and natively recorded 24/96 through a NOS dac has slightly more air and natural shimmer but only the slightest amount. It is very probable that the people who find the big benefits from native high rez are benefiting from lower levels of oversampling happening. |
I pretty much agree with much of what has been said--except. I have a very high revealing system, Apogee Scintillas/Krell KSA80B and a Meridian Ultra Dac. I find in general, as the sample rate goes up, the sound does get better. The best material seems to be classical at 352. Its the spacial info about the hall and the air around the instruments thats a little better. I also in general find that MQA on top of good material is the best--and once again I find poor stuff at 44.1 and I find great stuff at 44.1. For my ears, listening for the music to be in the room, the artist, the sound engineer, higher bit rate, higher bit depth, and MQA all improve the sound. |
I note your question relates only to bit rate and not bit depth. My answer is that no we do not need anything above 96Khz. In fact it may be slightly deleterious - increased processing power and disc space. The main point is that there is no musical information beyond about 30Khz - the overtones of the highest notes music are now very low. Also to be practical there are limitations on (1) recording microphones picking up this extra information; (2) tweeters being able to reproduce these frequencies accurately, if at all; to say nothing of (3) the limitations of our ears. |
tomcy6 Geoff, If the problem was lasers and optical discs, wouldn’t downloads and streamed music sound obviously better than CDs and SACDs? >>>>Good question. I don’t know. I am only addressing CD players. |
Geoff, If the problem was lasers and optical discs, wouldn’t downloads and streamed music sound obviously better than CDs and SACDs? That is not the case in my personal experience and what I’ve read on forums. For example: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-does-my-old-cd-player-sound-so-much-better-than-my-new-streamer?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid |
OK here are the 3 big problems I see 👀 regardless of what format the disc is. Two of the problems involve vibration - structure-borne vibration, acoustic and other mechanical vibration (motors, CD transport, transformers, etc.), and vibration of the disc itself (!) whilst spinning, preventing the laser from staying on the nanoscale spiral track. The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems. It’s no wonder differences among the various formats is oft indistinguishable. The systems aren’t resolving enough. Hel-loo!! |
I agree with so much that has been written above. I do think that Redbook can sound amazing. But I also hear alot of 24/96 stuff sound a touch better than Redbook. Yet as someone said above it depends on the mastering too. I think erik_squires notes well how DAC and the implementation topology has improved a ton over the last decade. I think that is the biggest piece in all of digital. With a great DAC even Redbook is great. |
I tend to think 16/44khz is a product of scientists who knew what they were doing, and hi-rez is usually the product of marketers who know how to spin a tale. If the hi-rez purveyors are not sampling from analog tape, they'll likely selling refried beans. The counter-(oranges) argument is a test that claimed double-blind viewers preferred watching 8k on a 65-inch TV even though they could not see a difference. "Double-blind viewing"? Personally, I agree with Erik on DACs. I can't hear a difference between 16/44 Blood-on-Tracks and the hi-rez offering on a top modern DAC. |
| Post removed |
