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

[Julf]

"To answer your question ... No - sort of :-)"

 

Fair enough - seems you manage fine without them. It's just that impulse behavior is one of those things that is best described by differential equations. Not sure the CA software allows for integral signs and such in the posting text...

 

[Paul R]

The confrontational style you encourage.

 

Yes, there are some people over the top here. Kind of gives color to the place.

 

And *you* shut your testing down early. Not my fault that with 90+ hour work weeks there was simply no time. And honestly, you ignored Chris when he suggested there were some serious flaws in it. (There were, though I seriously doubt you meant them as a "trick" of any kind.)

 

I would really suggest relaxing - a lot - and stop worrying about correcting people who are already unsure of themselves. You are unexpectedly sensitive, and that is probably more a factor with your disappointment than anything else.

 

That isn't a dig at you by the way, just an observation.

 

Shrug- most people, including me, think we should stop with the "but theory says!" bit, and listen to what people are experiencing, even when it conflicts with what we believe. Maybe, especially when it conflicts with what we believe.

 

That Hydrogen Audio place is considered a joke by most of the people I have met in the past few years. I find the place infested with people whose main joy in life is attacking other people to show how smart they are. ( No, I have never posted there, never will either.)

 

CA is different. There is room here for all types of people with all types of views. Even people with silly views, by some standards.

 

This is a hobby - I doubt hires music will solve world hunger or restructure the IRS or US tax code. One could wish, but in the meantime, it is meant to be fun. Not adversarial.

 

Paul

 

 

[PeterSt]

Can you imagine that someone like me can't place your last post ? I mean, it sure looks like you address Julf, but the why it totally beyond me.

I'm awake for 8 hours or so, while you may be 1. Not sure what this does to either ...

 

haha

 

[elcorso]

"...but your claim sounds like a rather grave one - do you have any proof?..."

 

My only claim is a "company that sells SACDs from 24/44.1 source recording"

 

The proof: I bought last week the BIS-SACD-1874, 2011, Stravinsky, "The Firebird, complete ballet". From the booklet you can read: "Original format: 44.1 kHz/24-bit".

 

Roch

 

[Julf]

"I bought last week the BIS-SACD-1874, 2011, Stravinsky, "The Firebird, complete ballet". From the booklet you can read: "Original format: 44.1 kHz/24-bit"."

 

Ah. My apologies - I misunderstood you. I thought you implied that they tried to pass off 44.1/24 material as SACD. But clearly they are honest about what they sell. Thus I feel confident that when Robert tells me that what he provided was recorded in 96/24, it really is.

 

[crisnee]

"Are you saying I don't know perfectly well how well I drive? Are you doubting my word? Are you claiming I am crazy?"

 

All of the above.

 

"Why don't you go for a drive yourself? You will see, with your own eyes, how bad most drivers are!"

 

I did once, but I thought I saw you drive by, so I canned any further plans for ventures out into the world and decided to take up audiophillia instead.

 

But let's not argue about this, afterall it's only a matter of life and death, and we do have hi-res vs. redbook waiting.

 

-Chris

 

[JonP]

Teresa,

 

I am frustrasted reading your comments relating to 16 bit because I truly don't believe you have heard 16 bits at it's full potential.

 

I offered some time back to send you some 16 bit, 48 khz recordings of mine that sound as good as anything I have ever heard, but you declined to even listen to them. So on the one hand you say you use your ears but on the other hand you want to dismiss listening material based on what you perceive to be technical shortcomings, but without even listening to it with an open mind.

 

There was also a thread here some time back discussing 16 bit at 88.2 khz and beyond. At the time I was also convinced like you that 16 bit was significantly inferior for final playback, but I approached the discussion with an open mind. To my great surprise, I found the difference between 16 and 24 bit at high sample rates to completely inaudible, and this is coming from someone who has no difficulty whatsoever hearing clear differences between digital cables, power cables, etc.

 

I think you should look into the history of digital audio and assess the recordings made by Decca engineers Kenneth Wilkinson and James Lock, whose careers spanned both the analgoue and digital eras. These engineers did not change their approaches when transitioning to digital - they simply substituted the Decca 48 khz, 16 bit recording system in lieu of the analogue recorders they were previously using. Yes, their early digital recordings did have some additional cloudiness compared to the analogue ones but overall the sound was all but identical. By the time Decca's recording system progressed to 18 and 20 bits, the results these two engineers attained was equal to their best efforts during the analogue era.

 

When you criticise 16 bits, l don't believe it is the number of bits causing the problems you hear. It is a combination of the 44.1 khz sample rate combined with less than first class dithering. Dithering with a top notch algorythm such as MBIT+ whilst working at a sample rate of at least 48 khz makes all the difference in the world as compared to the material you have passed judgement on.

 

I feel certain that anyone hearing my 16 bit, 48 khz recordings would be absolutely blown away by them, as they are completely devoid of any suggestion of digital origin and simply sound like the best analogue.

 

When Decca moved to digital they did it with the sole purpose of improving on analogue - not to keep up with technology. They knew back then the sampling rate had to be 48 khz, not 44.1 khz. They needed 20 bits for the recording and editing headroom, but these days the quality of the best dithering will retain 95% of the sound quality at 48 khz and to most if not all humans, 100% of the sound quality at higher sample rates.

 

The reason 16 bit PCM still exists is because there are many DACs out there that are 16 bit. There are also many cheap DACs out there integrated into computers and portable devices that would get better results at 16 bit rather than 24 bits.

 

 

 

[Jivatma]

while i personally believe its the producer that makes the number 1 difference in how good and accurate a recording is I have the SHM cd of hotel california as well as the HD tracks version and I actually do notice more notes from the opening instrumental from the HD tracks version. In particular the opening guitar has notes that you just do not hear from the cd version. However that being said, its could easily be the producer who made this possible and have nothing to do with it being 24 bit. But if I on my system can hear the difference i would think most of you on yours would be able to also for sure.

 

For me when I see 24 bit what I think is a very well produced and mastered album.

 

[Paul R]

As upon re-reading it, I thought it might sound patronizing or even like I was trying to pick a fight, when that wasn't my intention at all.

 

Anyways, it was mainly to Julf, though it could apply to a lot of us I suppose. See? Nice being able to put the "us" bit in there, isn't it?

 

-Paul

 

[Teresa]

"16 bit, 48 khz recordings"

 

I have not liked 16 bit PCM with one single exception the Telarc 16 bit 50kHz Soundstream recordings made from 1978-1983 as transferred to LP and later SACD. While they sounded worlds better than the absolutely dreadful sounding digital LPs from, Columbia, RCA, Decca, EMI, DGG and others they still were not as good as Prof. Johnson's "Pure Analogue" Reference Recordings LPs or Crystal Clear's Direct Disc LPs, especially in the high frequencies. However the Telarc's are no longer good enough for me even in their SACD versions and I have sold those SACDs. My Telarc recordings are all DSD.

 

Thus 16 bit 48kHz PCM recordings are lower resolution than 16 bit 50kHz which are no longer acceptable to me, so it would seem highly illogical to subject myself to 16/48 for no good reason!!

 

"16 bit at 88.2 khz"

 

I would prefer 24/44.1 over 16/88.2 if I have to make a choice. And do have some very good sounding BIS 24/44.1k downloads, however I like 24/96 considerably better!!

 

"When Decca moved to digital they did it with the sole purpose of improving on analogue - not to keep up with technology. They knew back then the sampling rate had to be 48 khz, not 44.1 khz. They needed 20 bits for the recording and editing headroom, but these days the quality of the best dithering will retain 95% of the sound quality at 48 khz and to most if not all humans, 100% of the sound quality at higher sample rates."

 

I liked Decca analog LPs, however when they switched to Digital in 1979 their LP sound went from warm, smooth and sometime gorgeous to dry, cold and very ugly especially the strident string tone. The Decca digital LPs were flat out terrible, and the CD versions were even worse.

 

Summary

In short I abhor most recordings from 16 bit masters utterly and completely on LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-Audios and digital downloads.

 

I have ventured on to 24 bit PCM, DSD and high quality analog, why the hell would you even for one second imagine I would want to subject myself to 16 bit PCM? That is so illogical I cannot believe you are even suggesting such a bizarre and totally unbelievable thing. OH, MY GOD!!!!!!

 

[JonP]

Teresa,

 

It is not possible for you to accurately judge the quality of the early Decca digital recordings because they are not commercially available in their native format. They have been dithered and resampled from 18/20 bit, 48 khz to 16 bit, 44.1 khz to conform with CD standards. I therefore don't blame you for stating they sound bad, because the very act of resampling them would cause those exact problems. And top quality dithering algorythms were not around in the days when the digital material was produced for CD, hence the distortion and noise artifacts that are again responsible for the poor sound you mention. Any sample rate conversion - even the very best on the planet - to my ears destroys digital sound far more than using a low sample rate or bit depth to begin with. I would much rather record at 48 khz for example, than record at 192 khz (or 96 khz) and then resample to 48 khz.

 

And a lot of the later commercial CDs again sound bad because Decca (and most Universal stuff) was archived to 24 bit, 96 khz so again has to be resampled and dithered for CD which again destroys the quality of the sound. Infact these later reissues sound far worse to me than the original ones.

 

But one can do a simple experiment because recently Linn Records began selling these older analogue recordings from Decca and DG in their native 24 bit, 96 khz format, so one can hear the original quality of the original analogue to digital transcription without the effects of resampling or dithering.

 

You can download those files and then run them through a software player that has a specific setting to dither to 16 bits at a high sample rate (i.e 96 khz). The difference between the 24 bit output and 16 bit output will be inaudible since the noise created by the conversion can be pushed well and truly outside the range where it has any audible effect at all on the sound (this cannot be done at 44.1 khz at all, since there is no bandwidth available to shift the noise outside of the spectrum where it will effect the audible material).

 

As for 16 bit, 48 khz for listening, I am not saying it sounds perfect, but I am saying that it does still sound excellent. It is about 95% as good as the best analogue which to me is more than good enough for a satisfactory listening experience.

 

It is becoming increasingly difficult to take your subjective opinions seriously given that you went on and on in years gone by about the fantastic sounding 16 bit Telarcs (to the point where you wanted to go into business in order to continue reissuing these 16 bit recordings). Now you say they sound awful and you have gone to the extreme of now stating that 16 bits without exception is some sort of sonic hell. But you won't even listen to good sounding 16 bit material - all you have listened to is material that has been damaged in some way by sample rate conversion, format conversion or dithering using less than state of the art algorythms or poor decisions on the part of the remastering engineer.

 

I agree that recording and editing in 16 bit does produce poor results, but most of the material that you now object to (excluding the Telarcs) was recorded and edited at higher bit depths.

 

Whilst I agree with Barry Diament that CD is the "cassette" of the digital era, it is my experience that recording and editing in 24 bit at 48 khz and then using MBIT+ to produce a final dithered 16 bit file produces an excellent sonic result and one that is extremely hard to differentiate from the original analogue source unless directly A/Bed. And even then, whilst the differences can be heard, the differences are sins of omission - there are absolutely none of the artifacts you mention such as cloudiness, stridency, brittleness, poor string tone, etc.

 

And recording at 96 khz and dithering to 16 bits produces a sonically transparent result so long as the dithering is specially designed to push the noise and distortion well outisde the audible range (almost all dithering algorythms are optimised for 44.1 khz which is why the results they produce are so audible - in a negative way).

 

[Miska]

Any sample rate conversion - even the very best on the planet - to my ears destroys digital sound far more than using a low sample rate or bit depth to begin with. I would much rather record at 48 khz for example, than record at 192 khz (or 96 khz) and then resample to 48 khz.

 

Would be interesting to know how you expect to record without rate conversion with any modern ADC. Because all modern ADC chips are oversampled and contain digital decimation (down-conversion) filter...

 

Recording at 48 kHz just puts two more down conversion filters into the chain inside the ADC chip.

 

For example something popular like AK5394A:

 

 

 

[labjr]

The more 24 bit stuff I hear, the more I hate CD. Myself, I hear a big difference. Some think because I don't have a $20,000 CD player. But I've demoed 24/96 material on $29 DVD players in other people's homes and they were stunned how much better it was. No matter what the reason, it seems easier to make higher sampling rates sound better than CD.

 

So unless you have 10,000 CDs and are happy listening to them or have 16 bit material that you can't get in other formats, I see no need to continue buying CDs. Qualitywise, it was a step backward from vinyl LPs. I too was sucked in by the convenience of it all. Not anymore.

 

[labjr]

Edit. Is there any way to remove a duplicate post?

 

[Thomas J]

I hear an obvious difference no matter the quality of the source, and the better the source, the more subtle (and thus more powerful) the difference that transmits.

 

[Paul R]

Pure and simple, a great deal of music I want to listen to is not available in high res formats. Some, not even on CD, and some not even on LPs.

 

Either I never listen to that music, or I learn to like CD ad other formats.

 

Turns out, there is a lot to like, especially if you can listen to with CA technology, which sounds very good indeed.

 

IMNSHO, some folks are putting a bit too much drama into the issue.

 

Paul

 

 

[elcorso]

Paul,

 

I agree with you regarding the available music in CD versus hi-rez.

 

My main goal, as always, defending hi-rez, is because I find this one better, so, urging the music industry to awake and not to stay all the life on CD quality. I believe 30 years is enough. DL service is faster, storage is cheap and you can get a good DAC and music player without spending a fortune.

 

Miska,

 

When you talk about 48kHZ, is like the resolution you find in DVD-Video? Because when I rip (or extract) the music inside, the resulting sound horrible, I'll prefer regular Redbook format.

 

JonP,

 

"...I feel certain that anyone hearing my 16 bit, 48 khz recordings would be absolutely blown away by them, as they are completely devoid of any suggestion of digital origin and simply sound like the best analogue..."

 

My very personal opinion is that the only close approach to best analogue (in digital format) is analogue to DSD.

 

Roch

 

[Teresa]

The Decca Digitally recorded LPs I purchased in 1979 and 1980 were converted from the original digital masters to LP, there was no conversion of bit or sample rate but direct to analog. The major labels have never been able to get digital right IMHO, not even on SACD or DVD-Audio. The ONLY good sounding digitally recorded LPs I ever found were the Telarcs! Even other 50kHz Soundstream recordings such as those from Philips, Chandos and Varese Sarabande had that disturbing digital sound that I hate with a purple passion!

 

However even back in the 1980's the best pure analog LPs such as the Reference Recordings LPs I mentioned were always better. That didn't stop me from buying the Telarc 50kHz Soundstream LPs, as I said their only problem was slightly less fine details in the treble but they did deep bass really well, and the engineering was superb with a large soundstange. Telarc's only competition at the time with realistic deep bass was Reference Recordings, Crystal Clear and the bottom-end organ records from M&K.

 

Also the digitally remastered LPs from analog masters that came out in 1979 to the mid-1980's from the major labels sounded terrible, the original analog versions they replaced were much better.

 

You said "It is becoming increasingly difficult to take your subjective opinions seriously given that you went on and on in years gone by about the fantastic sounding 16 bit Telarcs (to the point where you wanted to go into business in order to continue reissuing these 16 bit recordings). Now you say they sound awful and you have gone to the extreme of now stating that 16 bits without exception is some sort of sonic hell."

 

This summation is wrong, I don't know if it was because I was not clear enough or you read my post too fast, this thread is really getting long so I can understand scanning.

 

The Telarc 16/50kHz Soundstream LPs and SACDs sound the same as they always have, it is me that has grown. And I will likely continue to grow sonically, I accept this is a fact of life. I never said they now sound awful, what I said was "I have not liked 16 bit PCM with one single exception the Telarc 16 bit 50kHz Soundstream recordings made from 1978-1983 as transferred to LP and later SACD. While they sounded worlds better than the absolutely dreadful sounding digital LPs from Columbia, RCA, Decca, EMI, DGG and others they still were not as good as Prof. Johnson's "Pure Analogue" Reference Recordings LPs or Crystal Clear's Direct Disc LPs, especially in the high frequencies. However the Telarc's are no longer good enough for me even in their SACD versions and I have sold those SACDs. My Telarc recordings are all DSD."

 

Also I have owned an SACD from a 16 bit 48kHz master Messiaen: Turangalîla Symphonie with Riccardo Chailly conducting the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra on Decca and I didn't think it sounded much better than a CD. One of my many, many disappointments on SACD.

 

In addition I also owned a 16 bit 96kHz recording on DVD-Audio, I don't remember the title though, it was even worse and was sold right away.

 

That is why I said I would prefer a 24/44.1k recording over a 16/88.2k recording, but prefer 24/96k. It is based on my history of buying and listening to said recordings. 24 bit RULES!

 

 

[PeterSt]

When you talk about 48kHZ, is like the resolution you find in DVD-Video? Because when I rip (or extract) the music inside, the resulting sound horrible, I'll prefer regular Redbook format.

 

What you will get from this is 16/48 which can be considered MP3. The encoding (when it went to the DVD) is the same, with the same variations you find in "MP3" in general. Can be 128 easily.

 

Also notice that DVDs vary heavily in compression in general. So, look for that one DVD with 5 movies on it (for the price of 2$ of course) and you'll know enough;

Although I never looked into it, I'm fairly sure that not only the MPEG compression can vary, but the audio just the same ...

 

Peter

 

PS: When you convert a normal MP3 of any encoded format and compression rate, you will get 16/44.1. Not that the "16/44.1" frequencies are in there ...

 

[PeterSt]

24 bit RULES!

 

Can't we put a ban on these super-subjective postings where no-one will be right anyway ?

 

Teresa, you had your share in that never ending thread of yours. It could only end because Chris put an end to it.

 

Jon, you shouldn't have started. Although it was obvious to me that someone had to to it.

 

Sadly, you both seem to know a lot about underlaying happenings and real merits to yesteryear's recordings in question. But I don't think they should be in this thread.

(As, of course, are a lot of other postings - including mine. However this kind of debate is one within itself and it indeed will not end.)

 

Regards,

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Jon, without all *that* many words, you seem to (want to) tell us that 16/48 is very okay compared to Hires, and with that imply that 16/44.1 is not.

 

If it is true that this is your message (instead of fighting Teresa which also is for a good cause sometimes :-)) then things still ain't right. I mean, if this indeed *is* your message, than I can tell you the same you try to put on Teresa; With 16/44.1 is totally nothing wrong, once a couple of things were set right.

 

So, *are* you saying that 44.1 is nothing but 48 is all ?

I mean, I would even tend to believe that (why not, when you compared it in most probably similar situations). But now why.

 

Or ... is it just about those particular unconverted recordings ?

In that case the whole subject can be dropped again, because they are not around - relatively.

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

IMNSHO, some folks are putting a bit too much drama into the issue.

 

Let's try to put this differently;

 

I can imagine that a few of you want to hunt down that few recordings which are well done in Hires. Go ahead with that - be happy.

 

I can also imagine that "we" want to get it right in general. But this will NOT be with the objective of past recordings. Unless - see above.

And, this should be outside of DSD, which IMO has a small chance. But this thread is not about that.

 

So what is this thread about ? about something which does not exist. It may in the very far future, but that likely will be beyond us all. And then *still* it won't be about our beloved Ray Brown's etc.

Not sure what it will be about *then*, but most probably nothing much we will be looking forward to in our after-world.

 

And so it seems to me that only those postings which are about

 

a. Redbook-CD is not that bad afteral;

b. And when considered bad, how to improve on it ...

 

are legit.

All other, to me, seems talking for the talking. Maybe for more reasons, but the sheer fact that "nothing" is around for Hires is reason enough.

 

And to be clear ... even DSD has no chance. Not in any perceived native format, because that too won't be around, and when we think it does - we are fooling ourselves.

 

But here too, "DSD" -very maybe- can be used to improve the Redbook format. Not that I see 100% how, but I sure should be able to, because I'm pretty sure that I apply the necessary improvements, and with that in mind, SDM-ing it, will only work for the better.

 

Mind you, this latter is a sneaky subject, although it's Miska's all the time. But even more indirectly it is mine too;

Upsample/filter it the way it "should" and apply the D/A means suitable for it (SDM allowed on either side).

 

Watch the day that this came true.

... if not already so, but never mind that for those who can't have the experience yet ...

 

[Teresa]

You said "And so it seems to me that only those postings which are about

a. Redbook-CD is not that bad afteral;

b. And when considered bad, how to improve on it ...

are legit. All other, to me, seems talking for the talking. Maybe for more reasons, but the sheer fact that "nothing" is around for Hires is reason enough."

 

FYI the title of this thread is 24/192 Downloads ... and why they make no sense?! Did you forget? And what a terrible article it is with one of the biggest bald-faced lies I have ever read in my life. "Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48." What a bunch of malarky!

 

I wished Prof. Johnson was here to kick the low-res people in the ears! Have you heard any Reference Recordings 24/176.4k HRx data discs?

 

It seems to me that only those postings which are about defending high resolution 24 bit digital are legit. Everything else is in support of low resolution which every audiophile should abhor!

 

There is no reasonable defense for the existence of low resolution 16 bit PCM in the 21st century. It is time to enjoy music how it was meant to sound with all the resolution it has live in concert with nothing removed or chopped off.

 

Bah humbug to low resolution, please let it die soon!

 

[PeterSt]

I wished Prof. Johnson was here to kick the low-res people in the ears!

 

I would be careful with that. To me it seems that the more time passes by, the more him and me will agree upon everything.

It goes/went totally unintentional, and btw, he was first.

Oh, no way I would dare to compare myself to him, but coincidentally we can compare products, and the vision behind them.

 

I'll leave it to this.

 

Bah humbug to low resolution, please let it die soon!

 

Comes across like theory without the knowledge of it. Just saying ...

(about who lost what -

[Downrange]

Is what it's mostly all about. Attempts to "objectify" audio standards for what is heard usually fail, because so much about the whole process is subjectively measured. Saying "24 bit rocks," or rules, is a statement of subjective measure. I think that's fine, just as I think it's fine to say "some CD sounds pretty darn good." Teresa may not agree, and that's fine too. We can all agree to disagree, can't we?

 

You know what will be the final arbiter in the debate about "how many bits/sample freq is enough?" The marketplace. And if I were a betting man, I'd place my money on hi-res EVENTUALLY raising the bar. Not because consumers demand it, at least not initially, but because of the "bandwidth bloom" that's occurring due to the continually decreasing cost of data storage and processing. As it becomes just as easy to release an "album" on a cheap memory stick (see the Beatles collection) as any other way, or as a 1 GB 24/96 download, for that matter, we will see those silver discs begin to slowly fade away from shelves. Indeed, it's already happening. And the iPod set will gradually move up from MP3 to lossless, as the data becomes as easy to store and retrieve - and to share - as it was before. They may even discover some better earbuds that reveal how bad those MP3s were. The difference maker is the overall cost of the technology.

 

Same thing happened with HDTV. First, it was a few of us with expensive equipment and very little program material - now it's everywhere. And the kicker? When 24 bit becomes the next standard, Teresa and the rest of us hi-res advocates will be right here, praising the 32 bit material, wishing more of it was available!