Interesting article on 24/192

steveinaz

Whether or not you agree, interesting info:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

bmbguy

Whoa. There's a lot to digest in that article!

SolidSqual

Oops sorry. I just posted this too. My system must be really awesome because it bends the laws of physics (or something). 24/192 definitely sounds awesome in my room.

steveinaz

No doubt 24/96 sound outstanding (haven't tried a 192 download yet), but then again, I've never compared the exact same music done at 16/44 to see if a difference exist, or if it's just good mastering. Many believe the hype around SACD is based on the fact that quite often the music has been remastered for the SACD---and that is why it sounds better. I would tend to agree.

BlueFox

Wow. The Roger Russell of digital audio. Substitute 'speaker wire' for '192k sampling', and it is the exact same nonsense. The ear can't hear the difference. There is no difference. Science proves it. ABX tests prove it. Everybody who thinks it sounds better is nuts. Everybody who thinks an SACD sounds better is nuts.

steveinaz

I was more interested in the information---than their "injected" opinions. I do feel 192 is overkill in the extreme, even if hard drives were a penny a gig. Oversampling does nothing for the retrieval of audio information, bit depth and mastering quality does--IMO.

SolidSqual

steveinaz wrote: »

No doubt 24/96 sound outstanding (haven't tried a 192 download yet), but then again, I've never compared the exact same music done at 16/44 to see if a difference exist, or if it's just good mastering. Many believe the hype around SACD is based on the fact that quite often the music has been remastered for the SACD---and that is why it sounds better. I would tend to agree.

Probably something to it since I own some extremely well record 16/44.1 material that sounds very hi rez. It's all about the mastering. That being said, this guy is discounting the R&D of some serious companies that pursue the Highest of Fi on a daily basis. I don't claim to understand it all, but the guy discounts certain aspects of hi resolution with offering almost no explanation. In the end, it's just a blog post.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

No doubt 24/96 sound outstanding (haven't tried a 192 download yet), but then again, I've never compared the exact same music done at 16/44 to see if a difference exist, or if it's just good mastering. Many believe the hype around SACD is based on the fact that quite often the music has been remastered for the SACD---and that is why it sounds better. I would tend to agree.

Think of it as "same recipe, different chef"

H9

megasat16

Thanks for posting this article, guys!

Nearly always (i.e 99.999% always) a good Redbook CD Player will trump a lousy 24/192KHz upsampling player.

Yes, I have heard some outstanding 24bit/192KHz players as well but it's all in the presentation but not primarily due to upsampling.

I leave the brain wrecking arguments in the past and use a good redbook disc with a good CDP or a good SACD with a good SACD player.

YMMV.

Fongolio

What bothers me in that article is the way the author is looking at 192kHz. He's talking about levels of human hearing and the added distortion 192 causes. However, 192kHz is the frequency of sampling (192000 samples per second) and with 24 bit word length. I don't understand how simply sampling more often (as opposed to 44100 samples per second for redbook cd) introduces anything but a smoother aproximation of the original sine wave.

And then there is SACD. SACD players and discs are based on DSD (Direct Stream Digital) processing, a 1-bit format with a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz, 64 times the rate of a standard compact disc. A compact disc is recorded with 16-bits of resolution at a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. The higher sampling rate results in wider frequency response and audio reproduction with more detail. A typical redbook cd has a dynamic range of 96 dB whereas SACD's have a range of 120 dB.

And then there is my ears. I agree that a very well mastered cd can sound extremely pleasing when played back on good equipment, but in general most of the time I prefer a higher resolution recording (SACD, DVD-Audio, streamed from computer high resolution file) to a redbook cd.

And then there's vinyl. I prefer a well mastered and pressed vinyl copy to any of the above with some exceptions. I have also rediscovered (via a high end Nakamichi deck) the excellent sound of audio cassette. But both the above mentioned formats are analog and not digital therefore I'm comparing apples to oranges.

My conclusion on the article is that it was written by an insider in the cd industry hoping to stem the tide of high res digital downloading in order to save the dying cd industry.

steveinaz

I think if Redbook CD had been maximized as an audiophile medium from day 1, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, nor would SACD exist.

BlueFox

steveinaz wrote: »

I think if Redbook CD had been maximized as an audiophile medium from day 1, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, nor would SACD exist.

If Redbook CD had been done right from day 1 it would have been at least 24/92K. However, I suspect that at the time the laser technology available, and the storage capability of the plastic disc helped to determine the sampling specs.

steveinaz

It wouldn't need to be 24/96. That's my point. Not that 24/96 would be bad--it certainly wouldn't; it's just not needed when a recording is mastered correctly. IMO, 99.9% of redbooks' downfall is poor mastering.

Fongolio

steveinaz wrote: »

IMO, 99.9% of redbooks' downfall is poor mastering.

Agreed. When the "loudness wars" forces mastering into 50% or more of the music clipped and thus compressed the format starts to sound serously crappy.

cnh

So the basic conclusion here is that a well-mastered Redbook CD is just as good (better?) than an equally well-mastered SACD? Mostly because of the limitations of human hearing and the more or less perfect digital encoding which contains all of the original analog wave or that it can perfectly reproduce the analog wave once it gets to the analog outs. If I'm understanding this correctly.

Well, it certainly tries to overturn the Audiophile cart, doesn't it? Since I don't have extensive experience with SACDs, I will defer to those who do.

cnh

steveinaz

cnh wrote: »

So the basic conclusion here is that a well-mastered Redbook CD is just as good (better?) than an equally well-mastered SACD?

If they were both from the same mastering, I would think that there would be extremely subtle (if at all) improvement. This is just based on hearing 24/96 PCM music, vs well mastered CD's I have.

evhudsons

Obviously mastering can be more important than format. It would seem to me though that the less constricting format would yield a better experience even if it falls out of scientific reasoning of what the brain can hear, or see. For instance we can only "see" or identify so many colors, but TV's and projectors can produce millions or even billions of colors which in a big picture yield a better picture although our brain can not take in all the colors individually. If the overall range is extended it would reason that the area we can hear we can hear or appreciate better, such as in real life.

John K.

Steve, thanks for bringing this to our attention. The article and sources included in it should be valuable to those whose minds are open to learning more about the realities of modern audio technology. Of course, some of the points made there have been made here previously.

markmarc

Having heard all three types with proper mastering on a top .5% system in the world by any measure, I can safely say that the 24/192 is best of the bunch. On my own rig, though not as obvious the same can be said.

The key is to support and recommend quality records whenever possible.

CoolJazz

I think you guys are really mixing up two different issues. The article is (IMO falsely) critical of the higher sample rate and greater bit depth. This to me has nothing at all to do with the content...as in the smashed audio that's so common today! Sure suck still sounds like suck at greater resolution!

Most of us have some kind of content around for some time on redbook that has now also come out on high-rez. Much of this isn't remastered or fooled with. Just now released in a resolution that comes closer or maybe even is at the rate used in the studio. Like a bunch I have from Chesky. I've picked up some of those in higher bit rates and the difference is really there! I'd rate it as a bigger step than many other things we do...even though those things are still well worth doing too when you're after the best you can reasonably get for music playback in your home.

I don't think there is any question, judged by what I hear in my room, that the author is better off to be playing with his freeware code stuff and leave audio to those that care enough to really know the differences! He can have his earbuds in while riding his bike or whatever....I'll take my high quality in my sweet spot!!! Thank you very much!

CJ

bmbguy

Good, bad or otherwise, one has to wonder that if the Redbook format were 'developed' in today's technology world rather than back when it was -- which was before the IBM PC hit the streets -- if the decisions made would have been the same. I'd venture to guess probably not.

But that's the case with all things. "Standards" have to be kept standard for at least some amount of time, or the world would be in a constant state of flux. Like the transition from SDTV to HDTV, DVD to Blu-Ray, etc., there has to be some semblance of 'order'.

Have you ever sat in on discussions of standards in the tech industry? It's a wonder that anything is ever agreed upon...