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

[Jud]

Agree with pretty much everything you just said.

 

Interesting thing, I'm breaking in a new USB cable and have my collection on shuffle play. Have the Beatles remasters in 16/44.1 on there, as well as Cirque du Soleil's "Love" soundtrack, with Beatles songs remastered in 24/96 and otherwise modified by the Martins père et fils.

 

There's just no comparison on my system - hands down, "Love" provides more of a window into those voices that many of us grew up with. Whether it's the 24/96 or the Martins' remastering, or how much of each, well, who knows? For the hundreds of Beatles songs that aren't on "Love" that I currently have in 16/44.1, I'm thrilled to be able to hear them now; when they come out in 24/96 or 24/192 or 32/768 or whatever, yes, I'll run out and buy 'em all over again. If that makes me a sucker, it's OK. It's plenty worth it to remember moments like me and my two best friends, age 10, singing along to "I Should've Known Better," trying and failing, to our parents' laughter, to hit the high note on "Mi-hi-hi-hine"....

 

[PeterSt]

Ok, understood Jud. But, sadly for you, my story is no different;

 

Quite some CA attenders already, know that I tend to play The Beatles as THE example of something which was held for impossible : a total with "today" on par sound, meaning it just could have been a modern recording, but with the compression left out.

 

In the mean time I let people compare with those remasters, and show them what happens when the compression is in.

Too bad.

 

One thing for some (maybe funny) context :

The Love album from the Beatles is the very rare exception of how a remaster can end up to be one without compression (or other sh*tty things) applied. It's even a most interesting remaster, because of what has been done. Fresh, so to speak (but sadly never lasting too long, referring to the applications to start and end of tracks only).

 

I can tell you, this sells on the spot, just because it's so outrageously different from how we remember Get Back and the like. Gray. Always totally gray.

 

So Jud, at believing you instantly (why not, some people I really do believe instantly), it leaves us nowhere again.

One thing : you must believe me.

 

Tadaaa

Peter

 

PS: Of course I was referring to the 16/44.1 versions.

 

[Downrange]

That music/mix is incredible! I bought the nice package with CD and DVD-A, but, since I gave away my PS3, I've got no way to play the hi-res! (And, that was really dumb of me, since it was one of the early ones, not upgraded...) I ripped the CD to FLAC and listen anyway. Still sounds better than most of my Beatles stuff.

 

Y'know, I actually got to see Love in Vegas a few years back, and I was HIGHLY impressed with the sound they achieved. Speakers built into the seats/headrests type set up, as I recall. But it was way above "mid-fi." Pretty amazing achievement.

 

[PeterSt]

I have the Hires of Love laying around somewhere too. But really, I never even tried it !

(which clearly testifies of my ignorance, or genuine no-need otherwise !)

 

[Jud]

Quite some CA attenders already, know that I tend to play The Beatles as THE example of something which was held for impossible : a total with "today" on par sound, meaning it just could have been a modern recording, but with the compression left out.

 

In the mean time I let people compare with those remasters, and show them what happens when the compression is in.

 

Yes, even when the compression is relatively mild compared to the general run of things. So odd, too, since now there are no physical limitations of vinyl to cause worry about full dynamics, and The Beatles are not exactly an act that needs to make a first impression on the radio by being louder. That is what is so exciting about Love and so frustrating about the current 'mainstream' releases - it shows us some of the real potential in those old master tapes, to an extent that has turned the heads of everyone I've played it for.

 

What I have that makes the current 16/44.1 releases OK, even though I wish for better, are those memories.... We weren't hearing the songs back then in the best fidelity, but we were singing along loudly and very, very, badly, so it didn't matter anyway.

 

[bdiament]

if I may...

 

(I figure if the writer of that article could randomly insert someone's name, I'd try it with the title of my post.)

 

Some of the posts here remind me of the AES's attempts to legislate audio several years ago when they lobbied NYC's Commissioner of Consumer affairs in their effort to make ads for audio cables illegal.

 

Why get all perturbed because someone says "24-bit rules" or if they say "16-bit rules"? It will not change what any of us hear - or don't hear. Let folks listen to what they want to listen to.

 

That article, in my view, is getting way too much attention in the audiophile world, particularly from folks who hear it very differently from the author. Rants like that won't diminish the benefits of 24/192 for folks who are enjoying them.

 

Personally, I think there is an inverse relationship between how heated an audio argument (or more clearly, an article or post making that argument) is and the confidence of the author. To borrow from Pirsig, no one argues that the sun will rise tomorrow; they know it will.

 

As to K.J.'s point of view, I have heard him express a feeling quite similar to my own, in that a threshold is crossed as one gets to the 4x rates (176.4 and 192k) that he feels is quite important.

 

I've often said the same thing and often pointed out that in my own experience, with the best (but not all) converters operating at 4x rates (I like 192k), for the first time in my decades of recording, I am getting back the sound of my mic feed. Never got this impression with the best analog I've heard or the best 24/96 I've heard. The best 16/44 I've heard... well, I'll say I think it can be quite listenable (as can analog cassettes).

 

But that's just how I hear it. My experience has taught me that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. I'm sure there are others who will not hear any difference between 16/44 and 24/192. And there will always be those who say they do hear a difference and 16/44 is their preference. Fine. I wish them all much joy in their music listening.

 

I find it interesting to read the different points of view and hear of different folks' listening experiences. As long as the experience is their own and they don't try to insist it belong to others as well.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[Julf]

I was about to present a slightly different angle on the AES brouhaha, but then I realized there was no way I was going to disagree with someone quoting Pirsig...

 

[One and a half]

is pertinent in that the TV stations to gain more bandwidth tend to transmit in SD rather than HD.

This is akin to having a 192/24 capable DAC decoding 128k AAC, what you see on screen is total garbage, bringing your 1080p screen resolution to a 480i equivalent. Maybe I should have kept that CRT after all.

 

[labjr]

"Teresa and the rest of us hi-res advocates will be right here, praising the 32 bit material, wishing more of it was available! :)"

 

I recall a seminar at RMAF 2010 where they said that the next logical step for audio is a transistion from 24 to 32 bit.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Julf,

 

**"...way I was going to disagree with someone quoting Pirsig... ..."**

 

;-}

 

Just finished re-reading both books...again.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Julf]

"Just finished re-reading both books...again."

 

Always worth a re-read. But it is funny how many people I come across who never managed to get through all of ZAMM.

 

I even added it as recommended reading for a software engineering course in the 80's...

 

[bdiament]

Hi labjr,

 

**"...I recall a seminar at RMAF 2010 where they said that the next logical step for audio is a transistion from 24 to 32 bit..."**

 

I think there may well be a bit of a numbers game going on with many manufacturers in the audiophile world. Of course, this isn't new and as long as there is the opportunity for commerce, I would expect it to continue.

 

What I mean is, in my experience, a great many of the hardware devices and software applications claiming 24-bit are not particularly clean in the low order bits.

 

Similarly, most of the converters I've auditioned that claim to do 192k actually sound worse at this rate than they do at 96k. This, I attribute to clocking that is not up to the significantly increased demands of the higher rates and to analog stages that are not delivering at the wider bandwidths.

 

Put another way, as of March, 2012, I don't know that many devices that can reveal the potential of 24-bit, 192k sampling. (And I don't know a whole lot of software that can deliver bit clean 24-bit words.)

 

The so-called "32-bit" DACs I've heard so far are what I refer to as "ear rippers", seemingly also capable of loosening dental fillings. (Actually, I would describe a number of highly touted "24-bit" DACs not very differently.)

 

I've seen one record label promote their CDs as having "100k mastering" (or was it being "100k mastered"?). Made me think, well, I'm mastering at 24/192 with software that employs 80-bit data paths; should I refer to our CDs as "80-bit/200k mastered"?

(I wouldn't.)

 

256-bit, 1 GHz sampled audio will probably sound pretty good... but I wouldn't rush out and get the first unit on the market myself. First I'd want to hear what they could do with 24/192.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Julf,

 

It is my all-time favorite book.

But I know what you mean - I know folks who have started it but never did make it all the way through.

 

Sorry to all for the off-topic tangent but many things in this book do seem to apply to this hobby of ours.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Julf]

"It is my all-time favorite book"

 

Mine too, Barry!

 

"Sorry to all for the off-topic tangent but many things in this book do seem to apply to this hobby of ours."

 

Agree. Some of us ride BMW's, some Hondas (or even worse, Triumphs ).

 

[squarebab]

Has anyone listened to The Beatles' 16GB USB stick release of their 14 stereo albums in 24/44.1? I would love to hear a critique before plunking down 300 dollars on the green apple.

 

[Teresa]

You might enjoy my article: The Beatles in High Resolution http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue57/beatles.htm

 

I really like the Love 24/96 DVD-Audio however I love my 24/96 copies of the MFSL LPs of The Beatles (White Album), Abbey Road and Rubber Soul.

 

I borrowed the newly remastered CD digipak of "The Beatles" from the library, it was a mint copy, I was the first one to check it out. I was not impressed, the old MFSL LPs are worlds better IMHO.

 

 

[Jud]

Further to Barrows comments, Resonessence has issued a paper on some of the practical issues with filters in DACs. It is well written and worth reading even if you have no interest in their products. This is the link:

Overview of New Filters: Version 2.1 and later

 

Nigel

 

Nigel, wanted to thank you for that citation - it's very good (so far, haven't finished) at explaining concepts. I thought the explanation of aliasing using wagon wheels in old Westerns as an example was brilliant.

[alainbil]

 

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.

 

 

Do you have specific recommandations of analogue recordings from Decca and DG on Linn Records ?

[JonP]

Do you have specific recommandations of analogue recordings from Decca and DG on Linn Records ?

 

Hi,

 

I think they are all consistently good. In my opinion, though, they are not quite up to the standards of the vinyl reissue equivalents - there is still a very slight synthetic sound quality and very slight upper-mids hardness that is not in evidence with the vinyl reissues, but I think these 24 bit 96 Khz transfers were made years ago (1990s?) when analogue to digital conversion technology was not as transparent as it is today. But they all without any doubt sound significantly better than any of their CD counterparts. I think the sonic "truth" lies somewhere between what the Speakers Corner vinyl and these high res downloads sound like, but to me there is still this slightly fatiguing factor with these high res downloads that I don't experience at all when I listen to my own 24 bit, 48 khz transcriptions of the equivalent Speakers Corner vinyl.

 

If I am right in that what we are downloading are transfers made back in the 90s, I wish they could go back and do them again with the latest technology. The absolutely very best ADC technology these days is almost transparent - if not completely transparent - to even the best human ears - and I think the results would be noticably better.