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

2»

Comments

  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 26,290
    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
  • erniejadeerniejade Posts: 5,401
    Lost of the classical hit 24/192 MQA on tidal it seems.
    Den: Lumin D1,Wireworld Silver Eclipse RCA, KEF LS50 Wireless, Velodyne SPL1200, Technics 1200, Denon DL160, Jolida D9,

    Living Room:,T+A PA 1530R,Wireworld Silver Eclipse SC, Tyler Highland H2, High Fidelity Reveal RCA, Aries Mini, W4S recovery, LKS MH-da004,

    Have but haven't used in a while: LH Labs VI Dac, Cayin SCD50T, Grant Fidelity Tube Dac 11.
  • msgmsg Posts: 5,961
    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.
    I disabled signatures.
  • msgmsg Posts: 5,961
    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/
    I disabled signatures.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 26,290
    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 :)
  • msgmsg Posts: 5,961
    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.
    I disabled signatures.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 26,290
    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.
  • 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.
  • ... 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.
  • Windows file manager will tell you the BR and BD of a file.
  • pkquatpkquat Posts: 719
    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!
  • 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
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!