Is 24/192 any better than 16/44.1 or 16/48?

pearsall001

Here's an interesting article for you. This will surely stir up the hornet's nest. True/False? Opinions please.
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

mantis

I'm not sure I buy this article. As a lot of it makes sense to what he is trying to say, I have heard huge differences in 2 recordings , one in 16/44.1 and the exact same in 24/192. The 24/192 always sounded much clearer, more dynamic and cleaner. If 16/44.1 is all you need then why wouldn't a recording studio use it?
Look I'm a musician and want nothing more then to just hear what was , not compressed , not re eq'd for someones boom box , I want the exact copy of the studio master tapes and this is what the attraction is to 24/192 files.

I have copies of 16/44.1 Albums that where ripped from CD's in Apple Lossless and sound as good and in most cases better then the CD playing in a cd changer of high quality. Then I also own the same album on 24/192. I have not run into anyone who picked the 16/44 version to sound as good or better then the 24/192 stuff. It never happened.
When I was at the Audiolab , we tested the crap out of many files. We had mad amount of CD's in the Store and tested them live, ripped and vs the 24/192 downloads. Again everyone who listened never picked the cd version over the high rez.

Now if the 16/44.1 track was superior , I would run that. I don't care what format I'm running , I just want the best possible sound quality of what I want to listen to, thats all.

SACD is amazing and always has been. I own only a few on of them as when I was purchasing them, my favorite music was not in that format. I looked to DVD AUDIO and found even less of what I liked. I own maybe 10 DVD AUDIO disc's.
When High rez files came out, I figured this would be the next greatest thing in high quality replay music. I found out that it sounded as good as SACD's I owned , in one case I thought the 24/192 file sounded better then the SACD version.

CD's do sound great especially when you get a good recording, have a good player , wired with good wire , have a good preamp and amp of some kind , great quality speaker wire and finally a nice pair of musical speakers. Place all that in a room correctly , calibrate it and you have one very nice enjoyable listening replay systems. Stepping up to high rez downloads or SACD IMO is another level of sonic perfection.
I really don't care what that article states or even proves , if I can hear a better version , thats the one I want. Fortunately for me I own gear that can play every single available format out there. So I can take articles like that with a grain of salt. I can come to my own conclusions and make a judgment. I'll be honest , playing high rez files is much more difficult then SACD and CD's. You have to download it , get software to play it , get a DAC that can decode it and pass it correctly. it's a lot of things to do when you can have music simpler. With all the streaming services and millions of songs at your finger tips , easy is very attractive.

mantis

This is a video I found on youtube and I have spoke to many engineers in my career and basically this dude sums up what I have learned as a professional and as a musician.
Please take the time to really listen to what he says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jj3SKVvuoY

BlueFox

This guy is the Roger Russell of digital, just like cable naysayers, and the "all amps sound the same if the measure the same" gang. Never mind countless people saying the opposite, they refute it by saying the reason s people are folling themselves. To each their own.


"Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity playback."

"Of course you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible. I don't mean that flippantly; as human beings, we're all wired that way."

"In any test where a listener can tell two choices apart via any means apart from listening, the results will usually be what the listener expected in advance; this is called confirmation bias and it's similar to the placebo effect. It means people 'hear' differences because of subconscious cues and preferences that have nothing to do with the audio, like preferring a more expensive (or more attractive) amplifier over a cheaper option."

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

This guy is the Roger Russell of digital,"

Agreed.

Some caveots in all this though. 24/192 downloads.....how do you know they are not upsample 16/44 instead of straight off master tapes ? That's my problem with the whole hi-rez industry.....you really don't know what your buying, most the time anyway. For what they want to charge per download, they can keep it imho. I've stated many times I thought 24/96 is where the magic lies between detail and musicality. Anything higher seems to lose something by gaining all that extra detail.....to my ears anyway. Can't put my finger on any one thing, but if I had to, I would say it loses some tone, some fleshing out. I know all recordings in hi-rez like others are not created equal and maybe I have yet to hear a stellar 24/192 file. I dunno....but what I do know is once you get to a certain point, chasing down minute differences in detail takes away from simply enjoying the music.

For some of us, this audio hobby is about chasing the last square inch of detail possible at any cost. Can't say I fall into that camp. Can't say I cherish having to buy my whole library over again as technology changes either. Nor do I cherish having recorded music spread out over different formats in the digital realm. Perfection, no matter how worthy the chase, is usually never acquired. I tend to instead simply enjoy the tunes as best I can without losing sleep over the next supposedly best thing.

These digital file debates are what the industry does to create buzz, to get people to spend coin. Marketing at it's finest. The best old answers ring true for everything in audio....get you ears on it and decide for yourself if it's worth it to you and your wallet.

teekay0007

tonyb wrote: »

...I tend to instead simply enjoy the tunes as best I can without losing sleep over the next supposedly best thing.

These digital file debates are what the industry does to create buzz, to get people to spend coin. Marketing at it's finest. The best old answers ring true for everything in audio....get you ears on it and decide for yourself if it's worth it to you and your wallet.

+1 to that ^^^^ Well said, Tony.

F1nut

Albums that where ripped from CD's in Apple Lossless and sound as good and in most cases better then the CD playing in a cd changer of high quality.

Well there it is, there is no such thing as a high quality CD changer.

These digital file debates are what the industry does to create buzz, to get people to spend coin. Marketing at it's finest.

Ed Zachary. Lots of sheeple for the wolves to feed on.

Loud & Clear

mantis wrote: »

I have copies of 16/44.1 Albums that where ripped from CD's in Apple Lossless and sound as good and in most cases better then the CD playing in a cd changer of high quality. Then I also own the same album on 24/192. I have not run into anyone who picked the 16/44 version to sound as good or better then the 24/192 stuff. It never happened.
When I was at the Audiolab , we tested the crap out of many files. We had mad amount of CD's in the Store and tested them live, ripped and vs the 24/192 downloads. Again everyone who listened never picked the cd version over the high rez.

I think what the author is saying is that you wouldn't know the difference in a blind testing session. He's also saying that you would absolutely pick the hi-rez file, every time, if you knew the difference between them beforehand.

steveinaz

While logic dictates that 24/192 is never going to sound worse than 16/44; 16/44, when done correctly is completely satisfying to this listener. Our bigger problem is poor mastering/recording. I have a few a 24/96 flac albums, and they do indeed sound very good---as good as any source I have ever heard, I also have some CD's I can say the same about; unfortunately they are more the exception than the rule. IOW, I don't think, in my opinion, it's the redbook format that is the problem.

steveinaz

Here's an excellent explanation of bit depth/sampling rate that will show you just how exact digital can be, in re-creating the analog waveform:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC5KFnSUPNo

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Our bigger problem is poor mastering/recording.

Absolutely Steve....and not much today is put out from a starting point of good mastering. So then I ask, whats the point of a 24/192 download of poor mastering ? Sure, certain dsd is done from the original tapes, but at what cost to the consumer ? Most good recordings are of older music, which suits me fine, but how many times do we have to re-buy our recordings ? How many times will you re-buy your movies....VHS-DVD-blu-ray- is the next going to be green-ray ? You going to re-buy all your movies again ?


The industry constantly seeks ways for people to re-invest in stuff they already own, this drives the whole industry. How much resolution in HD TV's....1080i-1080p- 4k-8k...same stuff. After they milk what they can out of hi-rez or DSD, they'll come out with a super DSD or similar. Going to rebuy all those downloads again ? Then theirs the whole compatibility issues between components and cables as technology changes. DSD certainly has promise, but not until prices come down to the real world and recordings are mastered better and not simply for IPODS and car radios.

I'm all for technology improving audio, but I'll wait for the big leaps instead of worrying about the little steps forward.

steveinaz

Agree Tony---until we have "humans" that have the expertise to exploit the potential of even 16/44, you're just just paying for more expensive "crap." It all starts at the beginning, and no amount of "fluff" is going to polish a ****.

Having said that, many times hi-res versions are remastered correctly, so many people assume the better sound is due to the increased bit depth/sample rate, when it is in fact due to better mastering.

vc69

Agree with Tony and Steve 100%. I will say though, that I am a big proponent of Hi Rez digital files as long as they are properly sourced or are native. Upsampling is a sham.

Carry on.

tonyb

I don't know if I would go that far to call upsampling a sham. Depends on how it's done and that varies between gear. Some certainly sounds better than others. It's been my experience so far anyway, that NOS dacs seem to carry more weight to the sound, which I prefer, but I'm not ready to kick any upsampler to the curb yet. Too many variables dictate the final sound, upsampled or not.

zingo

I find that well recorded music makes a much bigger difference than bit rate.

vc69

I should have been more clear. I should have said "selling up-sampled files at an inflated price is a sham". My DAC up-samples, so I am cool with it as far as that goes (though I would rather have a DAC that just converts what I feed it natively). But charging a higher price for files that have been opened in Adobe Audition and saved at a higher bit-depth/sampling frequency is most certainly a sham and I know that happens. I am wary of hi-res file re-sellers (HD tracks, etc.) unless I am confident in the source. You know, buyer beware and all of that.

txcoastal1

It's all about the original mastering. It's like trying to cover up body order with cologne...it still stinks.

When paying the extra money for recordings you have to do your home work, look at the reviews extra.

tonyb

zingo wrote: »

I find that well recorded music makes a much bigger difference than bit rate.

Bingo....and like Steve and myself said, that's the problem that should be addressed.

erniejade

Lots of cd players use upsampling. I thought musical fidelity upsamples on their cd players?

I hear the difference when I upsample in jriver from the original flac.

With high rez, as long as the masters are recorded high rez, I'm all for it and it does sound wondeful. It all depends on how its mastered

Sacd vs 16/44 or redbook , I've said this before for me, it depends on the dac. Using the internal dac when I had the elite 9 or the cayin sacd player I am currently running sacd sounds better but, when I run 16/44 or redbook through the w4s dac2 , the redbook version sounds better