kilohertz and bits

[Mmo]

so i understand 128, 256, 320 mega bytes per second, and how the more space a sound file takes, the higher quality the audio. i use FLAC files turned into apple lossless, or i find 320 sounds alright.

but i don't fully get the 192kHz/ 24 bit when referring to, say a DAC. even my largest audio files have a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, which is CD quality i understand. would a higher sample rate of 192 kHz only come from a super audio CD, or HD music?! and the 24 bit? how much dif with a higher sample rate?

the largest audio files say m4a. i'm sure there are better file formats. what's the limiting factor with an m4a?

i'm organising my audio files and have decided to stick with my macbook pro and JRiver software, rather than buy a music server with it's own hard drive. i may use an old toshiba laptop as a music server too. relevant info here needed too!

thanks again.

 

[Mmo]

my FLAC files are 96kHz and bit rate of 2500 - 2900, so i've partially answered my own question. but i still lack the big picture.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

This is bigger picture you're lacking:
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/24_bits_can_you_hear/
and here:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/16-44-vs-24-192-experiment-163/

Do some reading - it would help you hugely. Don't get stuck on codecs, formats and bitrates.

 

[Mmo]

thanks BSA. read much of the first link.
assuming good hardware, a decent CD mastering and a good media player software:
what's your minimum standard? whats your maximum standard above which increases are irrelevant?

cheers,
Mmo

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

My bare minimum is 192kbis cbr mp3 with quality source and "lame" quality encoder.
At 320mbis mp3 is nearly indestiguashable from cd, for everyone except teenagers who can actually hear what 20 khz sounds like
and Finally, full CD quality 16bit 44/48Khz FLAC is my absolute maximum. Anything above is waste at best. the Dynamic range properly mastered CD could provide is more than most speakers could play anyways

 

[corey]

BSA, it's nice to hear a voice of reason among all the high res audio stuff.

 

[Archimago]

Indeed. BSA, very reasonable.

However, just because it's possible and could remove any trace of question about 16/44 like folks who worry about the "brick wall" and various other digital filtering effects, I would really like *well mastered* (ie. full dynamic range) 96kHz for my collection of favourite tunes.

Above 96kHz, I'll certainly pass...

 

[TLS Guy]

My bare minimum is 192kbis cbr mp3 with quality source and "lame" quality encoder.
At 320mbis mp3 is nearly indestiguashable from cd, for everyone except teenagers who can actually hear what 20 khz sounds like
and Finally, full CD quality 16bit 44/48Khz FLAC is my absolute maximum. Anything above is waste at best. the Dynamic range properly mastered CD could provide is more than most speakers could play anyways

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

These codecs are psycho acoustically based. They are far from all equal. In particular mp3 is a very crude and bad codec and easily distinguished. All of these codecs change the spectral balance of instruments and the perception of the space in which they are sounding.

For music from the pop culture, I agree you will seldom tell the odds. However in the music I listen too they are far short of adequate. I will also give you that most speakers do far more violence to the music than most codecs.

However on my system with music, I have established these systems are easily picked out.

mp3 in particular changes the bass line in a most unnatural way, and also does huge violence to the sense of space.

AAC and AAC plus are much better codecs, with 90 kbs AAC superior to 190 kbs mp3.

However even at 320 kbs AAC plus it is still not as good as loss less.

I can record the BPO stream at 320 kbs AAC and compare it the the BD and CDsplus high res formats of the same concert. It is not hard to pick out the lossy codecs. They sound very good. However the presence of the loss less renditions is of a different order, with more realistic strings, much more presence and attack on the brass, coupled with a much wider and deeper sound stage for starters.

I'm not alone in this. The BBC engineers remain frustrated with the limitations of these codecs, and have started experiments with streaming FLAC encoded streams using DASH.

I hope these lossy codecs are just interim technology, that is serving us with limitations in the interim.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I wish i had your speakers, alas my are nowhere as good.
I would disagree with you on few minor points. Aac 90kbps is comparable to mp3 128 but not better.
Let's not judge entire mp3 codec, quality varies significantly between different encoders and specifically LAME mp3 encoder does great job.

Like is said high quality encoded mp3 at 192kbs is quite close to original. I haven't compared much classical music on high quality speakers so I'm not expert by any means, but My point is 192kbs beats SAT,FM, HD and most Internet streaming radio stations.
I don't equal it to lossless, but its good enough for casual listening on typical speakers

 

[Irvrobinson]

I wish i had your speakers, alas my are nowhere as good.

Another factor may be training. People can be trained to listen better and with greater acuity. The way the ear-brain system works if you are trained to listen for something previous masked differences become obvious. In my experience, when you've done a lot of live recording, like TLS Guy has, some issues pop out at you that would elude others.