Jump to content
IGNORED

24/192 Downloads ... and why they make no sense?


Recommended Posts

Of course I'm!

 

I study for MBA a long time ago, then was a professor on Financial Analysis for some time. I can handle with easy graphs and numbers, all the time you want.

 

That was my torture during 40 years or so: Trying to match numbers on the budget versus real life. I can swear you that is more difficult in finance than in digital music, because a big failure in

Link to comment

By saying this I agree with Teresa, Jud and the others that support hi-rez

 

I've heard both hi-rez and CDs that sounded beautiful to me. (Now both Roch and PeterSt think I'm a cloth-eared idjit, but for opposite reasons! :-)

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

How about "Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain" by Oliver Sacks?

 

Don't know if it has anything on point, but as it's Dr. Sacks, I may read it anyway. Thanks for the reminder.

 

 

 

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Just to be clear, I am not against hi-res, and have a fair bit of it on my server. But I am not sure if I can hear a difference because of the resolution, or because of different mastering. That is why I did the listening test - my initial starting pint was neutral, with a slight bias *for* hi-res. The fact that none of the people who claim to be able to clearly hear a difference participated in the test is a data point in itself.

 

Link to comment

Rather than acoustics (the study of mechanical waves), I was looking more for references in fields dealing with human audio perception

 

I have not made nice scientific work about this.. But based on my experience I've come to conclusion that for human hearing the most important part is changes in the signal and attack part of the instruments' sound. Pretty fast perception begins to filter out non-changing static parts.

 

It's a bit same thing as with peripheral vision - movement is much more recognized than steady state. For example any display flicker is for many much more recognizable with peripheral vision. Same with many animals...

 

Many of the senses have developed to sense changes in the environment/surroundings. Just like a any snaps or crackles at quiet night in a forest that cause a strong reaction.

 

If you cut out attack parts from sound of an acoustic guitar, it becomes much harder to recognize the instrument. So preserving integrity of the changes is important.

 

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

In my own case (and I'm certainly a vocal adherent for a HUGE difference between 16 and 24 bit files sounds), as I pointed out early in this bloated thread, the test itself is flawed by having "easy-peezy" a capella male vocal material, rather than something which challenges 16 bit. I have any number of wonderful-sounding ambient CDs here (Steve Roach sounds fantastic on CD) that also would not represent much challenge for 16 bit (and, unfortunately, his material seems to be unavailable in 24 bit), and so I'd not use them either in such a comparison test.

I did download one of the test files, which was plenty enough to determine the test was fatally flawed because the material would not challenge 16 bit very much. And, as bandwidth is at a premium (I have a monthly limit), that was that.

As I've suggested throughout the thread, people can easily satisfy themselves about the differences they may hear between various sample rates and bit depths by simply downloading the many free or low-cost samples and tracks available at many sites. As Teresa says, it's in the hearing that's found the proof. Unfortunately we're simply not going to hear much difference between any of the tracks in your test, as pointed out before. 16 bit is flawed in certain very definable ways (here are the three biggies): stridency of massed strings and some female vocals, especially massed sopranos in choral works, smeared (or overly emphasized, tizzy) leading edges for transient attacks on percussion, including (especially) piano, and inadequate reproduction of low level music dynamics (due to bit depth limitations), the last of which is really the only thing the material in the test may have been able to show.

I do commend you for trying, as I originally said.

 

I have thousands of LPs, hundreds of CDs, and dozens of 24 bit downloads. I mostly listen to the downloads...

Link to comment

Yes it is. And we know why they did not participate. I am an 'objectivist' I suppose, But none of these tests will ever convince the 'subjectivists'. Micheo has provided the results of lots of tests, and he is a professional in the audio business, with access to millions of dollars worth of relevant equpment. But people will still have their beliefs.

 

Precession of the earth has displaced the signs of the zodiac by about three or four months. Tell a Capricorn who believes in astrology that he or she is actually a Gemini and see how far you get. It's the same here.

 

PS: Downrange has a good point. Maybe you should have used the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth.

 

Link to comment

"...people who claim to be able to clearly hear a difference participated in the test is a data point in itself....".

 

From BIS, a recording company that sells SACDs from 24/44.1 source recording?

 

Come on Julf I'm not a kid anymore, not since a lot time ago.

 

And coming from you, a low-rez defender?

 

If you aren't against hi-rez, I don't know who could be.

 

There is a common philosophy quote in my country: "With friends like this, I don't need enemies"

 

Carpe Musica,

 

Roch

 

Link to comment

with an open mouth and a heavy heart. It is beyond high time I gifted you gentlemen with the benefit of my years of accumulated wisdom and knowledge. It is with resect to the following statement that I feel so compelled to enjoin :

 

"If you cut out attack parts from sound of an acoustic guitar, it becomes much harder to recognize the instrument."

 

To this I say - "Bollocks".

 

Thank you and goodnight.

 

ps. :) :) :) - in as much as I mean you to not take offense. Not in that the statement is not total bollocks, because it is. :)

 

Attack, in music, is the force with which a note is created. I have played guitar for nigh on fifty years. I have played harmonica, bagpipes, banjo, keyboards and paper and comb. I should happily discern them all from even the softest of touches.

 

All this willy-waving drivel is one thing, have a nice day, knock yourselves out, whatever. Can I ask you to please not misappropriate musical terms in pursuit of your arguments? Please! Music is all the rest of us have left, don't start on that as well!!

 

I probably shouldn't post this. I should probably just take a deep breathe, delete the link to CA and get on with the rest of my life. Ah, what the hell.......

 

Link to comment

Gawd, that's funny.

 

Actually, the analogy that came to me was a lot of medieval monks having a full-blown riot over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

 

I have thousands of LPs, hundreds of CDs, and dozens of 24 bit downloads. I mostly listen to the downloads...

Link to comment

So yes, to open another Pandora's box. Hires sounds way too soft to me. There's no life in it.

 

Now, this is an interesting statement. You do hear a difference, but you don’t like it.

 

The funny thing is that we probably hear (more or less) the same thing, but perceive it differently. What you call “too soft”, I perceive as “more fluid” and closer to natural instruments.

 

16/44 in comparison sounds slightly “dry” and slightly “reproduced” in my ears. -It might sound kind of more “impressive” initially, but in the long run I find 16/44 to have slight “mechanical” character.

 

I write “slight” because the differences between 16/44 and 24/96 are subtle, not “big”.

 

Aslo , I think 24/96 has more low level and acoustic information. Usually the sound field expands on hi-rez, compared with 16/44.

 

 

Natural born audiophile and music lover with a few thousand classic rock and jazz albums heard through: Dedicated PC > XXHighEnd > Phasure NOS1 DAC > Active preamp > 3-way active XO > 3kW SS amps > DIY linesource speakers (a 200cm ribbon, 12 7" mid drivers and 7 12" bass drivers each channel) > acoustical treated 45m2 listening room. Dedicated mains line, DIY silver/cotton cables, etc etc.

Link to comment

Can I ask you to please not misappropriate musical terms in pursuit of your arguments?

 

I used it because that was the term in the academic papers I read. Guess you'll need to talk to them about misappropriating musical terms into the science of, um, music.

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Deleted double post.

 

Natural born audiophile and music lover with a few thousand classic rock and jazz albums heard through: Dedicated PC > XXHighEnd > Phasure NOS1 DAC > Active preamp > 3-way active XO > 3kW SS amps > DIY linesource speakers (a 200cm ribbon, 12 7" mid drivers and 7 12" bass drivers each channel) > acoustical treated 45m2 listening room. Dedicated mains line, DIY silver/cotton cables, etc etc.

Link to comment

At the risk of getting too immersed in this juggernaut of a thread, just a thought I shared in some other thread many weeks ago, but don't remember where. I went to a "high end audio" store recently and heard some systems the proprietor had set up. They had some rather esoteric speakers and amps that I'd never heard before, high dollar stuff with names like Dali and Rogue Audio, to name a couple, kind of out there from my perspective, but not really completely unaffordable.

The one big take-away for me was that NONE of the systems were even close to as accurate as my full-sized Maggies, fed with the stuff I have here. I mean, it was a very dramatic loss of high frequency information I was hearing. It almost sounded like old tube gear and paper-cone speakers from the fifties. Just horrible.

Yet, the owner was obviously very proud of the sound he'd achieved with all this high dollar stuff. That got me thinking: maybe because we've had to live with this horrible 16 bit sound for so long, a segment of the high end has "evolved away from" accurate reproduction of the sound. Perhaps having to deal with the problems of 16 bit for so long has created an "aural meme" of inaccuracy in transducers. I note that many reviews of speakers with ribbon tweeters have a "cautionary" note about how important "component selection and matching" can be to avoid "harshness." Hell, probably even the custom cable industry (read: linear tone controls) has evolved as a result of the need to make accommodation for CDs problems.

As we RECOVER our music (and our hearing) perhaps people will return to ACCURATE reproduction systems and realize the awful compromises we've had to endure because of the flawed Redbook standard all these years.

Just a pet theory - I'm not saying this is gospel.

 

I have thousands of LPs, hundreds of CDs, and dozens of 24 bit downloads. I mostly listen to the downloads...

Link to comment

Bob,

 

And not for discussion, but joking only.

 

Reading from Merriam-Webster (English is not my native language). The word "bollocks" came from "testicles". Then it could be the right one to describe hi-rez.

 

From Miska "..."If you cut out attack parts from sound of an acoustic guitar, it becomes much harder to recognize the instrument."..." I believe he is right, but misunderstood by you, since of course everyone can recognize (even on MP3) an acoustic guitar from a cello. But, what kind of acoustic guitar? A Yamaha, a Martin, a Taylor, etc. And whit what strings, nylon, metal?

 

If you are a musician, I can understand you, you listen more for execution than for SQ in music. I have some musician friends...

 

Best,

 

Roch

 

Link to comment

To this I say - "Bollocks".

 

Yeah, I was just remembering some old academic study of subjecting listeners to only steady state sounds of instruments and asking them to recognize those (without attack and decay). I blame the study and believing something from academic world without doing verification study myself. :)

 

Maybe I'd be better off talking about sounds of ships, submarines and marine mammals... :)

 

I had bit of fun cutting WAV samples out for others to try, see attachment. Nothing of a study of course.

 

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

No need to trash CD. Modern, quality DACs make CD sound almost perfect. -So pure and resolved. Stepping up to 24/96 just gives a tad more fluidity, slightly better micro dynamics and a little bit more low level information. This is my experience from owning and trying out some of the best DACs in my own system. Currently I am using the Phasure NOS1 DAC, which is by far the best I have heard. Together with the accompanying software player XXHE, they lift 16/44 playback up to another level. In fact, the special “Arc Prediction” feature gives you the impulse response of a high-rez recording. (The creator of this marvel is no other than PeterSt, so he knows a thing or ten about the subject).

 

 

PS: I had a great time with my old 3.6s some years ago. My present loudspeaker system is different, but I still use a full size ribbon tweeter similar to the Magnepan.

 

 

 

 

Natural born audiophile and music lover with a few thousand classic rock and jazz albums heard through: Dedicated PC > XXHighEnd > Phasure NOS1 DAC > Active preamp > 3-way active XO > 3kW SS amps > DIY linesource speakers (a 200cm ribbon, 12 7" mid drivers and 7 12" bass drivers each channel) > acoustical treated 45m2 listening room. Dedicated mains line, DIY silver/cotton cables, etc etc.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...