2. pc-audio
  3. 132167-3105

HD FILES which is best hi Bit Rates, or Hi Word lengths?

Greetings all,

It doesn’t take long to see 24/192 & 24/96 lossless files are the standard for High Def PCM audio, albeit, some hardware now up samples the bit rates to soaring levels for proprietary reasons.


Consequently, we’d all like to have both bit rate and Word lengths as tall as possible when originally cut, but now and then there is a definite disparity from several online resources wherein the words are long, but the bit rate is low, ie., 24/44.1K, or 24/88.2K.


… and we love the content! Which pretty much settles it for me, but being a picky sort I thought to see what some consensus was on this subject.


As such, it can be a bit costly to keep buying albums whose words and bits differ radically from the presumed standards. Especially if the supposed HD cuts are but marginally better or not perceived as better, at all than what one could rip . from CD


One EX would be the current HD Tracks download of The Life Songs of K Kristofferson a live Tribute album that is simply outstanding and releasedOct. 2017 . It is available as a 24/44.1K file.


Ripping off DVDs one usually can’t get beyond 16/48K when snatching 2 ch audio tracks. New options in current software enables artificial or just after the fact upsampling of the BRs.


So what should count most? Higher word lengths or higher Bit rates, when one or the other is not necessarily high or as significant?


Is this a black and white issue?


Wait for a higher set of numbers on the files you want, or dive on in, buy ‘em, play ‘em and see if they were worth it?


Lastly, does upsampling via software a true way to improve fidelity or sound Quality, or is it merely just one more placebo one can take to satiate themselves emmotionally?


I always felt if there were untoward issues in the present recording upsampling isn’t gonna improve things. But I’m always willing to learn new stuff or replace stuff that just ain’t so that’s already in my memory banks.


Thanks much for the insights.

blindjim

Showing 2 responses by shadorne

shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
The key is to understand that most DACs benefit from higher resolution and upsampling as it corrects non-linearity in bit levels and allows for a less aggressive anti-aliasing filter.

Currebt Class A+ DACs have the equivalent of 21 bit resolution at the analog output. It makes no sense to restrict yourself to 16 bit if a 24 bit version is available.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
@blindjim

"BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?"


-----> The 21 bit resolution in the analog is an analogy. It means that the noise floor on the analog circuits sits at the equivalent level of the signal level of the 22nd LSB or approx -160 dB. I think we can hear roughly 15 dB below the noise floor for musical tones especially in the mid range so even some stuff below the noise floor might be audible. The point is that 24 bits is well worth it but any higher than that (32 or 64) really only confer advantages to complex signal processing (heavy digital filtering or complex deconvolution like in room mode DSP - often described as the number of taps or coefficients in the filter - a large number being more complex and computationally intensive but more accurate such as having less pass band ripple) 

FWIW I have played around with room DSP and deconvolution filtering and I think it can improve things below 100Hz. However, even fairly complex 32 bit deconvolution like Audyssey XT32 creates audible artifacts in the mid range which to my ears are detrimental and degrading to two channel music - although for HT 7.1 and higher the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages (as speaker consistency and integration becomes more important as you increase the number channels)
More to discover