Testing for Bit Depth and Sample Rate...aka Resolution

2»

Comments

  • K_MK_M Posts: 938
    edited August 22
    heiney9 wrote: »

    This is very true, and is also why you can't rely on your ears alone for what I'm after. I'll repeat what I said above, the variability in recording and sound quality in general from album to album is more than enough to mask the small gains in going from a 320 MP3 to a 16/44 file.

    That is probably true for some recordings and maybe even some genre's of music, but isn't that small gain what most of us in this hobby are looking for?

    I mean really, to just say "well it's recorded crappy so might as well get an MP3", it's still degraded vs. the original recording.

    I'm not 100% sold on hi rez stuff because of the above, but in many cases I feel the difference is much smaller than going from 320 MP3 to 16/44 file because of the limitations of the source material in some cases. Meaning hi rez may not sound much different than the original because the limitation is the source material not the technology.

    But you have to take it on a case by case situation.

    MP3's are bad and one should strive to avoid them at all costs if you're serious about audio reproduction. But as always, we are the end consumer and we will always be at the mercy of the production/recording staff. If they produce a poor recording then no amount of tweaking is going to really change that.

    I will also say that if something is recorded particularly poorly, I probably wouldn't listen to it all that often, unless it's got other values that help my enjoyment.

    H9

    Im not sure we are talking about just poorly recorded stuff, but the vast amount of normal and fairly good sounding stuff, either the difference is so small, or maybe it is just up rezzed, or maybe different masterings...or maybe.......

    In the end, its hard to say anything for sure about Hi-res, that is an absolute and positive and completely true.
    I think a lotta people are just not impressed, with all these uncertainties.
    Lsi15, Lsi9, LsiC,Rta11t,M5jr+,M4,SDA 3.1TL, SDA SRS 2.3TL, Rti6....Still listing stuff, a work in progress.
    B+W-
    Epos-
    Infinity-
    Advent-

  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 8,595
    pitdogg2 wrote: »
    To be honest I think this whole HD thing has been somewhat of a scam from the get go. It meant to be a money grab. Why should extra bits cost more? I'm firmly in the camp that they are just upsampling 16/44 to whatever they can sell for more. Are the masters recorded at 24 bit 32 bit and 96khz or 192 khz? If they are does that really cost more to do? These days in digital all it takes it seems to me is for someone to include the code to trip a light. They are selling you 16/44 with a code to trip the 24/192 light.
    Color me sceptical

    Throw away all your silly fancypants cables, Ivan.
  • pitdogg2pitdogg2 Posts: 7,817
    lightman1 wrote: »
    pitdogg2 wrote: »
    To be honest I think this whole HD thing has been somewhat of a scam from the get go. It meant to be a money grab. Why should extra bits cost more? I'm firmly in the camp that they are just upsampling 16/44 to whatever they can sell for more. Are the masters recorded at 24 bit 32 bit and 96khz or 192 khz? If they are does that really cost more to do? These days in digital all it takes it seems to me is for someone to include the code to trip a light. They are selling you 16/44 with a code to trip the 24/192 light.
    Color me sceptical

    Throw away all your silly fancypants cables, Ivan.

    done I made my own from Canare..... smarty pants. Not to mention Ken S. made some for me from a coax RG62 I believe. It's an air core RG6.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,065
    lightman1 wrote: »
    pitdogg2 wrote: »
    To be honest I think this whole HD thing has been somewhat of a scam from the get go. It meant to be a money grab. Why should extra bits cost more? I'm firmly in the camp that they are just upsampling 16/44 to whatever they can sell for more. Are the masters recorded at 24 bit 32 bit and 96khz or 192 khz? If they are does that really cost more to do? These days in digital all it takes it seems to me is for someone to include the code to trip a light. They are selling you 16/44 with a code to trip the 24/192 light.
    Color me sceptical

    Throw away all your silly fancypants cables, Ivan.

    They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
    https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120

    bbqmuhwimdj8.png
    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • DSkipDSkip Posts: 13,521
    DSkip wrote: »
    Auralic's new beta version of lightning ds unfolds the MQA files to 96 now. It's a little buggy but the 48 limitation is almost gone.

    More on this. A client of mine actually saw 192 pop up on his DAC with the new firmware update. Apparently these go higher than 96 now.
    audiothesis.com/

    Speakers: Usher: CP-6311, Be-10, T-515; Rosso Fiorentino: Elba, Fiesole, Volterra; Polk: T50, Signature S60, S55, S35, S30, S20, S15, RTA 15tl, Sonner Audio Allegro Unum, iFi LS3.5
    Preamps: Shuguang S200MK, Dayens Ampino, Parasound P5
    Amps: Shuguang S845MK, Dayens Ampino Monoblocks, Parasound A23
    Integrateds: Dayens Ampino, Triode Corporation TRV-88SER, MastersounD: Dueventi, Compact 845, Evolution 845; North Star Design Blue Diamond
    Sources: AURALiC Aries, AURALiC Altair, Denon HEOS Link, North Star Design: Magnifico, Supremo, Incanto, Intenso, Venti
    Cabling: Wireworld
    TV: Sony XBR-75X940C
  • erniejadeerniejade Posts: 3,748
    Lost of the classical hit 24/192 MQA on tidal it seems.
    Lumin D1, KEF LS50 Wireless, Cayin scd-50T, LH Labs VI Dac, Technics 1200, Denon DL160, Jolida D9, HP I7 Laptop, Wireworld Eclipse 7, Wireworld Aurora, Wireworld Electra 7, Signal Magic Digital, Cardas Quadralink 5C, Velodyne SPL1200
    USB helpers: Intona, w4s Recovery

    HT: Elite SC27, Full Polk RTI setup.

  • msgmsg Posts: 3,396
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
    https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120
    bbqmuhwimdj8.png
    I bought a pack of those thinking it was a good deal on tuning forks.
    I was disappointed.
  • msgmsg Posts: 3,396
    I finally got around to spot checking a few tracks from different collections I've acquired over the years. I used Spek at first. Sure enough, I have some that the properties say they're higher resolution/quality than they actually are.

    I was looking around and found this other application I'd like to check out as well called MusicScope, or "The" MusicScope
    https://www.xivero.com/musicscope/

    Online Manual - https://www.xivero.com/musicscope-online-manual/
    HowTo - https://www.xivero.com/tutorial-how-to-analyze-any-audio-format/
    High Res or Not? Whitepaper - https://www.xivero.com/blog/high-resolution-or-not-high-resolution-that-is-the-question/
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,065
    msg wrote: »
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
    https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120
    bbqmuhwimdj8.png
    I bought a pack of those thinking it was a good deal on tuning forks.
    I was disappointed.

    Yeah, they make terrible tuning forks :)
    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • msgmsg Posts: 3,396
    They're not good for roasting marshmallows either. I'm 0 for 2 on these.
    I made sure to try them all, just to rule out having a few bad ones in the pack.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,065
    msg wrote: »
    They're not good for roasting marshmallows either. I'm 0 for 2 on these.
    I made sure to try them all, just to rule out having a few bad ones in the pack.

    A nice single-ended 300B stereo power amp will provide s'mores with great warmth and harmonic richness.
    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • I'm not so worried about bit depth. More so, I look at bit depth before noise. (S-N)
    But even that doesn't necessarily make your favorite Sex Pistols CD sound better.
    Anyway, save your money and buy *better speakers and equipment.

    *the sound you like.
    Studio 2 equipment;
    Yamaha a-s2100 Amp, CD-2100 CD player, T-S500 tuner
    Loudspeakers: Harbeth p3esr, Polk RT7
    Cables: Aural Harmony Sonnet Interconnect II, WireWorld Equinox 7 speaker,
    Black Cat silverstar 75 ohm digital, Signal Digital Power Cord, PS Audio Perfect Wave AC-3,
    Pangea SE14, Voltz supplied interconnects
    Optional: Arcam DV88 DVD/CD (HDCD) player, Polk SDS-400 speakers
  • ... I should add that all the digital media you listen to is upsampled
    by definition....
    not to take away from badly mixed and mastered garbage in, garbage out issue.
    Studio 2 equipment;
    Yamaha a-s2100 Amp, CD-2100 CD player, T-S500 tuner
    Loudspeakers: Harbeth p3esr, Polk RT7
    Cables: Aural Harmony Sonnet Interconnect II, WireWorld Equinox 7 speaker,
    Black Cat silverstar 75 ohm digital, Signal Digital Power Cord, PS Audio Perfect Wave AC-3,
    Pangea SE14, Voltz supplied interconnects
    Optional: Arcam DV88 DVD/CD (HDCD) player, Polk SDS-400 speakers
  • Windows file manager will tell you the BR and BD of a file.
  • pkquatpkquat Posts: 510
    I've skipped a lot of the DL tracks for this reason. SACD and DVD-Audio usually have good backing information on the recordings. Somewhere on the web there are also listings for dynamic range for various releases, remasters etc. A higher dynamic range than 16/44 does not guarantee it is true hi-res. There are algorithms that can artificially boost the range.

    Many of the studio remastered digital tracks that are called "hi-res" are remastered at hi or super hi resolution for mixing, equalization, and artifact removal. This in theory allows increased mixing and re-engineering capabilities and precision with less digital artifacts. Some of the source is 16/44 or 16/48, maybe higher for some recordings. With 16/44 source, there will be some gains, but IMO it would be hard to tell differences between the hi-res version and a new downsampled 16/44 version. For that matter, unless the mixing was very different, most listeners wouldn't really notice the differences of the higher res mixing equipment.

    IMO if the source is analog, some of the technology to remove tape hiss and defects in the tape is well worth it. Still I am not sure if there is much difference between a 16/44 and a hi-res version. Tape has its limits. For early digital sources, I don't think there are many gains.

    The hi-res files need full source and remastering history, plus some good reviews for me to be interested. As mentioned if the source isn't good, even if it is all hi-res DDD, the end won't be. I have yet to get a studio CD, other than from small budget bands, that sound like an mp3. I have gotten a number that are poorly mixed, or are otherwise underwhelming.

  • "unless the mixing was very different, most listeners wouldn't really notice the differences of the higher res mixing equipment."
    Bingo!
    Studio 2 equipment;
    Yamaha a-s2100 Amp, CD-2100 CD player, T-S500 tuner
    Loudspeakers: Harbeth p3esr, Polk RT7
    Cables: Aural Harmony Sonnet Interconnect II, WireWorld Equinox 7 speaker,
    Black Cat silverstar 75 ohm digital, Signal Digital Power Cord, PS Audio Perfect Wave AC-3,
    Pangea SE14, Voltz supplied interconnects
    Optional: Arcam DV88 DVD/CD (HDCD) player, Polk SDS-400 speakers
  • GospelTruthGospelTruth Posts: 254
    I had this issue back in 2010 when I bought a CD of Foreigner-Mr. Moonlight. I didn't realize at the time that Amazon was doing on-demand burning of the music to a CD. When I got it and opened it up, I was underwhelmed to say the least. No pamphlet (just the cover print) and the CD itself didn't have the printing like I would have hoped. But I figured at least I have the CD and the music. Upon listening, I was not all that enamored with the recording. As mentioned by others, it sounded like it was sourced from a high quality mp3. There was just something in the high frequencies that sounded "off". Well, I got an authentic pressing of the CD recently and it sounds way better to me than the one I got from Amazon. In my opinion, there is no way the two are the same source of the recording.

    Now I'm not saying that Amazon is to blame here. There is some responsibility from the recording company as well who is providing the files for the CD-R. However, it is my opinion that there is a lack of oversight on the quality of files provided to Amazon. For that reason I will never purchase any on-demand discs again. When I do buy music on Amazon, I check every time to make sure it isn't an On-Demand burn to CD-R.

    There is some music on Amazon that is out of print or was never available on CD that I would love to get. Amazon has them available for purchase as On-demand CD. What would be helpful is if they explicitly said the source of the files, original sample rate and bit depth. If they did something like that, I might return as a customer for these type of recordings on CD-R.

    Speakers
    Energy RC-70 Mains, Energy RC-LRC Center, Energy RC-R (x4) Rear Channels, Energy RC-R (x2) Front Effects
    Polk 5jr+
    Polk SDA 2B
    Polk SDS 3.1TL

    Equipment
    Panamax 5510 Re-generator Power Conditioner
    Yamaha RX-V3800 Receiver
    Digital Sources: Sony CDP-X339ES CD Player, HHB CDR830 BurnIt Professional CD Recorder, Sony PS3, Oppo DV-983H DVD Player
    Analog Sources: Sony TC-K890ES Cassette, Nakamichi DR-1 Cassette, Technics SL-7 Turntable
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!