24/192 music downloads are useless??

[mtrycrafts]

This must be the month to jump on the 24/192 'Makes No Sense threads' as they are doing the very same thing at Computer Audiophile
24/192 Downloads ... and why they make no sense? | Computer Audiophile

You didn't hear that this is the declared month for this?
Interesting posts at the link. I guess having a business interest in high res audio is not a reason to be biased on this subject there.

 

[avnetguy]

This must be the month to jump on the 24/192 'Makes No Sense threads' as they are doing the very same thing at Computer Audiophile
24/192 Downloads ... and why they make no sense? | Computer Audiophile

There are some very good and detailed explanations here on the digital domain side, a much better discussion than the AVS thread even though it diverges a bit from the main topic some.

Steve

 

[avnetguy]

I do understand. The detail is in the analog side, and the number of digital points is really irrelevant as long as you have the minimum required, because you know it is a Sine function. You got me interested enough now I may dig out my U text books on Analog/Digital/Communication theory still in boxes (used to be on my bookshelves but had been displaced by disc since my last move) in the basement.

That would be excellent, I just hope it would be in a context I can grasp/understand. I would bet the problem is my analog thinking, constained to understanding mainly simple lowpass filtering circuits, is holding me back from seeing it.

Steve

 

[Time_Stand_Stil]

Here is something anyone here can do if you have the gear to playback.

If you have a DVD-A of an album you believe is well made for serious audition and you have the same album in CD format. Get both.

Play the DVD-A and if you really want to be on the ball get a level meter or app. for your smart phone. Play the DVD-A of a track on the disc you are very familiar with. You need only play about 1 minute max. Make sure you reference the db level check.

Now put the CD of the album in the same player. Reference check that the level matches as close you can to the db level you were getting on the DVD-A. Once done re-cue and conduct a serious listening of the same track for the same length of time.

If you can't tell the DVD-A to be better over the CD then I suggest it's you who has the hearing, perception problem. Or you have some sub par gear in your system. I'm not saying a DVD-A is fall of your seat better, but if it is a qualitative test for yourself you should here a better level of fidelity with it.

Now I'm not saying a good CD cannot sound very good especially if you have a good CD player. But if the DVD-A is properly made and in proper playing condition it should be better and anyone who is LISTENING in any real way should hear a better rendition.


A 16 bit 44.1K format can sound quite good. The quality of a CD can be affected by the mastering and production process (LOUDNESS WARS ARE KILLING CD SOUND) and more so by the quality of CD player one uses. CD players DO NOT all sound the same. It is amazing at how much different they can sound from each other. Digital storage is not 100% perfect either. The player must correct for this and a player will be tuned to a maker's taste, efforts and cost input. All can affect the sound of a digital playback.

Hi-rez such as DVD-A or SACD should be clearly better sounding to a CD. Again Redbook CD can sound quite good but Hi-rez is not a placebo effect. It's better and unless you are somehow ill-qualified as listener or a purely casual listener to music and maybe think a Bose Wave radio is real hi-fi, you should be able to hear the benefit of a good hi-rez set up and music selection.

16 bits give up a max. dynamic range of 96db. Overkill in most home listening environs as mixing compression must be made to give us a CD that can be played back in real life. That said at its max 96db will cover most ability to record live cover to the dynamic range limits before compression will be made to it.

24bits gives ups up to 120db dynamic range, way overkill for any consumer use as the recording will have to be mastered down to a lower dynamic range to allow a user to play in any livable playback condition. That said 120db will give the engineer the ability to faithfully capture the dynamics of any music he/she will likely ever encounter live. From that he/she has more choices in compression for the end consumer product.

16bit 44.1K gives us a theoretical freq. response of say 1Hz to 22.5Khz. In most ways it will cover the fidelity we want to hear frequencies. 44,100 sample rate is where the debate comes in. Is that enough to give us the nuances we want? For most it's close enough. But 24bit 96K gives us a freq. response of say 1Hz to 48Khz. It more than covers the fidelity humans need/want and even higher freq. for any real or perceived sound or nuances many say they can sense. 96,000 sample rate gives us more oh to be simple in terms of debate, the resolution of the signal and that is what likely improves our fidelity. 192K takes us up the road even more with a higher freq extension 96Khz and much more resolution of the signal in terms of sampling rate.

The sampling rate is what really adds to the fidelity of a digital bit stream. 44.1 K in most cases in a properly mastered and produced playback situation on a good and proper operating player will be quality hi-fi and quite enjoyable. 24/96 or 24/192 gives more ability to the recording engineer and the production chain. Making a 16/44.1 dub off a 24/96 or 24/192 master will be very good. Making a 24/96 or 24/192 hi-rez consumer album will be better and should be hear able as such to any listener who listens critically.

 

[djreef]

Here is something anyone here can do if you have the gear to playback.

If you have a DVD-A of an album you believe is well made for serious audition and you have the same album in CD format. Get both.

Play the DVD-A and if you really want to be on the ball get a level meter or app. for your smart phone. Play the DVD-A of a track on the disc you are very familiar with. You need only play about 1 minute max. Make sure you reference the db level check.

Now put the CD of the album in the same player. Reference check that the level matches as close you can to the db level you were getting on the DVD-A. Once done re-cue and conduct a serious listening of the same track for the same length of time.

If you can't tell the DVD-A to be better over the CD then I suggest it's you who has the hearing, perception problem. Or you have some sub par gear in your system. I'm not saying a DVD-A is fall of your seat better, but if it is a qualitative test for yourself you should here a better level of fidelity with it.

Now I'm not saying a good CD cannot sound very good especially if you have a good CD player. But if the DVD-A is properly made and in proper playing condition it should be better and anyone who is LISTENING in any real way should hear a better rendition.


A 16 bit 44.1K format can sound quite good. The quality of a CD can be affected by the mastering and production process (LOUDNESS WARS ARE KILLING CD SOUND) and more so by the quality of CD player one uses. CD players DO NOT all sound the same. It is amazing at how much different they can sound from each other. Digital storage is not 100% perfect either. The player must correct for this and a player will be tuned to a maker's taste, efforts and cost input. All can affect the sound of a digital playback.

Hi-rez such as DVD-A or SACD should be clearly better sounding to a CD. Again Redbook CD can sound quite good but Hi-rez is not a placebo effect. It's better and unless you are somehow ill-qualified as listener or a purely casual listener to music and maybe think a Bose Wave radio is real hi-fi, you should be able to hear the benefit of a good hi-rez set up and music selection.

16 bits give up a max. dynamic range of 96db. Overkill in most home listening environs as mixing compression must be made to give us a CD that can be played back in real life. That said at its max 96db will cover most ability to record live cover to the dynamic range limits before compression will be made to it.

24bits gives ups up to 120db dynamic range, way overkill for any consumer use as the recording will have to be mastered down to a lower dynamic range to allow a user to play in any livable playback condition. That said 120db will give the engineer the ability to faithfully capture the dynamics of any music he/she will likely ever encounter live. From that he/she has more choices in compression for the end consumer product.

16bit 44.1K gives us a theoretical freq. response of say 1Hz to 22.5Khz. In most ways it will cover the fidelity we want to hear frequencies. 44,100 sample rate is where the debate comes in. Is that enough to give us the nuances we want? For most it's close enough. But 24bit 96K gives us a freq. response of say 1Hz to 48Khz. It more than covers the fidelity humans need/want and even higher freq. for any real or perceived sound or nuances many say they can sense. 96,000 sample rate gives us more oh to be simple in terms of debate, the resolution of the signal and that is what likely improves our fidelity. 192K takes us up the road even more with a higher freq extension 96Khz and much more resolution of the signal in terms of sampling rate.

The sampling rate is what really adds to the fidelity of a digital bit stream. 44.1 K in most cases in a properly mastered and produced playback situation on a good and proper operating player will be quality hi-fi and quite enjoyable. 24/96 or 24/192 gives more ability to the recording engineer and the production chain. Making a 16/44.1 dub off a 24/96 or 24/192 master will be very good. Making a 24/96 or 24/192 hi-rez consumer album will be better and should be hear able as such to any listener who listens critically.

I would be inclined to agree with you if the fact didn't remain that many of the hi-rez releases were mastered differntly than the red book versions, imparting a sense of differentness that could be incorrectly perceived as better. Look, I want to think that higher bitrates, and to a lesser degree higher sampling rates make a dfference - I'm just not so sure it's perceivable.

DJ

 

[DS-21]

If you can't tell the DVD-A to be better over the CD then I suggest it's you who has the hearing, perception problem. Or you have some sub par gear in your system. I'm not saying a DVD-A is fall of your seat better, but if it is a qualitative test for yourself you should here a better level of fidelity with it.

Yes, because the mix is different, and (at least with all the DVD-A's I own) discrete 5.1 rather than lowly 2-channel.

No other reason. See Meyer and Moran.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here is something anyone here can do if you have the gear to playback....

Well, it is not that simple to compare the two. Your protocol is full of gross flaws that will result in unreliable outcomes.

If you can't tell the DVD-A to be better over the CD then I suggest it's you who has the hearing, perception problem.

Why is it that so many blame hearing or the gear at fault and not the human limitations of human hearing? It is not a mystery what those limitations are and pretty well researched to date.
So, perhaps it is a faulty perception due to unreliable listening protocols.

... But if the DVD-A is properly made and in proper playing condition it should be better and anyone who is LISTENING in any real way should hear a better rendition.

Why???

... CD players DO NOT all sound the same. It is amazing at how much different they can sound from each other. Digital storage is not 100% perfect either. The player must correct for this and a player will be tuned to a maker's taste, efforts and cost input. All can affect the sound of a digital playback.

A player tuned to the makers taste? Which ones? Do you have evidence for any of the above??? Or, just repetition of audio mythology???

Hi-rez such as DVD-A or SACD should be clearly better sounding to a CD.

Why is that???

Again Redbook CD can sound quite good but Hi-rez is not a placebo effect.

You know this because of what evidence that others have missed???

It's better and unless you are somehow ill-qualified as listener

And, you are a certified qualified listener??? Who tested and certified you?

.... 44,100 sample rate is where the debate comes in.

What debate??? Oh, the ones who claim ultrasonic capabilities???

... Making a 24/96 or 24/192 hi-rez consumer album will be better and should be hear able as such to any listener who listens critically.

Sheer speculation

 

[Time_Stand_Stil]

mtrycrafts.

If you think all cd players sound alike. I suggest that you pick up a few, even cheap thrift store buys and listen. You will find they sound different. This tells us that digital vs digital of the same format is not all the same.

As to DVD-A and SACD, yes they sound better as they are high rez. 16 bit 44.1K on its own can sound great but the added resolution of the hi rez formats is noticeable. JUST TRY IT!

I'll end my reply here as its enough of one to validate my points. Also I have no more patience right now to argue what likely will only go circular.

 

[djreef]

Yet, another satisfied customer. Way to go mtrycrafts, another one bites the dust. Reminds me of the tag teams we used to get into over the benefits of high end cable at the old Audio Review site back in the mid 90's. Ah, the memories.

DJ

 

[Time_Stand_Stil]

I would be inclined to agree with you if the fact didn't remain that many of the hi-rez releases were mastered differntly than the red book versions, imparting a sense of differentness that could be incorrectly perceived as better. Look, I want to think that higher bitrates, and to a lesser degree higher sampling rates make a dfference - I'm just not so sure it's perceivable.

DJ

You are entitled to believe that, but that does not automatically make you correct.

Many listeners also say they can't hear the difference between 128k MP3 and Redbook CD, does that make them correct as to there not being any audible difference? Or does it question their ability to hear the differences?

You see the pomposity of those who state because the can't hear a difference between example A vs B, there then must not be one, thus reveals much of their arrogance.

 

[DS-21]

mtrycrafts.

If you think all cd players sound alike. I suggest that you pick up a few, even cheap thrift store buys and listen. You will find they sound different.

They sure do. When no controls are in place, most things sound different.

When one approaches things with some intellectual seriousness, one finds that the "amazing" differences are often not evident.

I personally participated in a test between a ca. 2005 Samsung "universal" (DVD-A/SACD/DVD) player picked up at a big box store for around $60 and a Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec that cost over $4k including upgrade costs.

Nobody managed to find a difference between them on music, though I'm sure on a test bench the impeccably-engineered Meridian would've been better.

Postscript: that Meridian owner sold it, bought a mid priced Japanese player (don't remember if Marantz, Denon, or Pioneer Elite) hat ended up having loading drawer issues in short order, but for a few years has been more than satisfied with an Oppo BDP-80.

 

[Grador]

You are entitled to believe that, but that does not automatically make you correct.

Many listeners also say they can't hear the difference between 128k MP3 and Redbook CD, does that make them correct as to there not being any audible difference? Or does it question their ability to hear the differences?

You see the pomposity of those who state because the can't hear a difference between example A vs B, there then must not be one, thus reveals much of their arrogance.

Just the same, if you cannot here a difference that does not make you wrong, as you are the one listening. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that there is in fact no difference between redbook CD and a high-rez format, simply that most, if not all, people are incapable of perceiving the difference.

Unfortunately a direct comparisons between the formats is difficult since, as noted before, often the mastering of the album is dissimilar.

 

[Time_Stand_Stil]

Just the same, if you cannot here a difference that does not make you wrong, as you are the one listening. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that there is in fact no difference between redbook CD and a high-rez format, simply that most, if not all, people are incapable of perceiving the difference.

Unfortunately a direct comparisons between the formats is difficult since, as noted before, often the mastering of the album is dissimilar.

Mastering an album is different how? I'm not talking a 5.1 mix vs a CD stereo mix. I'm suggesting a 24/96 or 24/192 STEREO mix on a DVD-A vs a 16/44.1 STEREO mix on a CD. What dissimilarities do you suggest in this regard?

To be clear, in high quality home audio playback we as hi-fi fans and as fans who cry for higher quality recorded music software NEVER talk about the typical public. Not in 2012, not in 1992, 1982, 1972 or 1962. The typical audio listener/consumer thinks a damn Bose Wave Radio is hi-fi. They think that $400 home theatre in a box is high quality surround set up. This is why MP3 is so popular among the masses. No, we are talking about music fans and more so hi-fi/audio fans, electronics gearheads and such. These listeners care enough about the industry, hi-fi hobby and their gear set ups even for many how the room they use is tuned, to be more acute to hearing sonic differences between various audio formats. Joe & Mary Sixpack are NOT factored in most cases, they typically do not care enough. But there are enough high quality recorded music fans and hi-fi/audio fans who constitute a market share to sell products they want too.

 

[Time_Stand_Stil]

They sure do. When no controls are in place, most things sound different.

When one approaches things with some intellectual seriousness, one finds that the "amazing" differences are often not evident.

I personally participated in a test between a ca. 2005 Samsung "universal" (DVD-A/SACD/DVD) player picked up at a big box store for around $60 and a Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec that cost over $4k including upgrade costs.

Nobody managed to find a difference between them on music, though I'm sure on a test bench the impeccably-engineered Meridian would've been better.

Postscript: that Meridian owner sold it, bought a mid priced Japanese player (don't remember if Marantz, Denon, or Pioneer Elite) hat ended up having loading drawer issues in short order, but for a few years has been more than satisfied with an Oppo BDP-80.

I was not privy to your test noted, but your point solves NOTHING. We have no criteria describing the test you note here, what suggestive comments may have been said even inadvertently before or during the test? What quality controls on the gear used were? What music was used and how familiar were the subjects to the music? Even an inadvertent blurb of rhetoric can skew any test no matter what else you used to try to keep it fair. What questions were asked of the listeners? You give us none of these answers, just an arbitrary statement and one that I cannot verify.

CD players do sound different and such things can and have been tested in more proper ways. I've done my own serious A/B tests of players and and had no reason to bias pro vs. con any units vs. any others brought in to test, just tests for the hell of it to reveal differences heard. I have clearly heard differences between these. No, not jaw dropping, knock you out of your chair differences, but clear sonic differences to allow me to place in a hiarchy of favourite sounds from player to player in such tests.

So your guy noted could go sell his Meridian and buy a lower priced machine, BTW IMO Oppo products typically punch above their weight class, but odds are he lacked a acuteness to hear the differences as the reason why the Meridian could not excel for his hearing ability.

 

[Grador]

Mastering an album is different how? I'm not talking a 5.1 mix vs a CD stereo mix. I'm suggesting a 24/96 or 24/192 STEREO mix on a DVD-A vs a 16/44.1 STEREO mix on a CD. What dissimilarities do you suggest in this regard?

I was mainly referring to dynamic range compression and equalization.

To be clear, in high quality home audio playback we as hi-fi fans and as fans who cry for higher quality recorded music software NEVER talk about the typical public...

I really don't appreciate the tone here. I understand that no one here believes a 128k mp3 is fantastic, and that most people don't care. My point is simply that you seemed to try to disprove comparison tests with that statement and it's wrong. If that's not what you meant then I don't understand what you were getting at.

 

[Hocky]

I have a few songs with rips between 16/44 and 26/96 and I've never been able to hear the difference - sighted tests with me choosing the source, even. I believe that 24/96 is "better," but most of the "better" than I've experienced has been better masters. The same file ripped into 2 resolutions has never sounded different to me and I'd like to think that most would consider my equipment fairly high end.

 

[djreef]

Just the same, if you cannot here a difference that does not make you wrong, as you are the one listening. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that there is in fact no difference between redbook CD and a high-rez format, simply that most, if not all, people are incapable of perceiving the difference.

Unfortunately a direct comparisons between the formats is difficult since, as noted before, often the mastering of the album is dissimilar.

Exactly. I'm sure dogs could hear a difference, bats maybe.

DJ

 

[DS-21]

Mastering an album is different how? I'm not talking a 5.1 mix vs a CD stereo mix. I'm suggesting a 24/96 or 24/192 STEREO mix on a DVD-A vs a 16/44.1 STEREO mix on a CD.

There is, of course, a very clever way to determine if the higher bitrate and sampling frequency makes a sonic difference. One can take such a recording, insert an D/A-A/Dloop into it, with the new conversion rate being 16/44.1. Then, the original can be directly A/B'ed in randomized blind trials with the "degraded version." A large and vibrant audio society can provide lots of skilled listeners who are interested enough in high-fidelity reproduction to sit through the tests.

For the results of that experiment, see. Brad Meyer and David Moran, "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback," 55 J. Audio Eng. Soc. 9 (2007), at 775.

For the bumper sticker conclusion, it did not support your position.

We have no criteria describing the test you note here, what suggestive comments may have been said even inadvertently before or during the test?

It was blind. The person doing the switching never was in view of the listeners.

What quality controls on the gear used were?

It was all likely superior to anything with which you're familiar.

What music was used and how familiar were the subjects to the music?

Music was chosen in consultation with people who had the one known positive different identification of digital sources (between a 14-bit first-generation player and a later unit), and was given to the panelists on a CD-R for a while prior. Though most of the tracks were already familiar to the listeners.

What questions were asked of the listeners?

Question, not questions: was the third player player A or player B? That is to say, is there anything about the innate sound of the devices under test that allows a listener to positively identify an unknown sample as being one of the two DUT's.

HAD there been a preference, we would've had to do a second round of testing. Though in all honesty we probably wouldn't have, and would've just assumed the Meridian was the better one.

You give us none of these answers,

See supra.

CD players do sound different

Perhaps, if they're broken, very low resolution, or something like that. Otherwise, spending money on a digital source for sonic reasons is just opportunity cost, no benefit. Though of course one may want a player that's better-looking, has a more reliable loading mechanism, has more features, etc.

but odds are he lacked a acuteness to hear the differences as the reason why the Meridian could not excel for his hearing ability.

The classic idiot audiophool snob retort never gets too hackneyed to trot out, now does it?

 

[Grador]

I stand corrected on my assertion that a direct comparison is difficult and feel kind of silly for not having this solution come to mind.

 

[DS-21]

I stand corrected on my assertion that a direct comparison is difficult

It's still fairly difficult to get the timing right.

and feel kind of silly for not having this solution come to mind.

Just because two very smart people came up with an ingenious solution and had the organizational skills and backing to take that insight and leverage the resources of their audio club (the venerable Boston Audio Society) into a paper worthy of audio's premier refereed journal...that's no reason to feel silly!