Difference between 16 and 24 bit

[Don Hills]

In a straight 16-bit recording vs. a straight 24-bit recording, there is no application for dither, which is useful when reducing word length.

 

You appear to be saying that dither is not used when making an original recording (using an A/D converter). Is that what you meant to say, or have I misunderstood you?

 

For the rest, have you read the paper written for the ARA by J. Robert Stuart (Meridian Audio)?

https://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf

[bdiament]

Hi Don,

 

You appear to be saying that dither is not used when making an original recording (using an A/D converter). Is that what you meant to say, or have I misunderstood you?

 

For the rest, have you read the paper written for the ARA by J. Robert Stuart (Meridian Audio)?

https://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf

 

Dither *can* be utilized in an A-D converter to increase linearity. (I would ask, What is the point? I think recording at 16-bits is silly as I can get a much better 16-bit result by starting with a 24-bit source.) Outside of that, I am not aware of its use other than during word length reduction, as from a 24-bit source to create a 16-bit version. I certainly have not used it in any other application.

 

I have been familiar with Bob Stuart's work for many years now.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[JonP]

As someone who does a lot of CD mastering, the conversion of my 24 bit master files to 16 bit has been the most frustrating and objectionable process in my entire workflow. I agree with others that the drop to 16 bits is very audible yet the differences in sample rates are - to me at least - far less audible and relatively insignificant.

 

In a recent discussion with an acquaintance I actually attempted to subjectively quantify in terms of "hard percentages" the quality "losses" I noted during my work process (a process that I have refined after several years of experimentation). I felt that the downsampling of my master files to the CD standard only represented a mere 2% of loss of quality. For me this is an excellent result (using iZotope), but it did take a huge amount of experimentation with iZotope's (thankfully multifarious) settings to come up with a result that to a large extent ameliorated the losses.

 

The subsequent conversion of those 44.1 KHz 24 bit files to 16 bit, however, results in a further 5% drop these days - and that occurs when using the very best dithering module I have ever found thus far - the recently released (January 2014) PSP Dither. Previously I had used the iZotope dither module, but using that I found the subjective loss of going to 16 bit to be around the 10% mark despite the enormous effort I placed into trailing all the possible settings.

 

What PSP Dither does better in the conversion to 16 bit is that it is a "sins of omission" process that does absolutely nothing at all to make the sound harder and more brittle (thus less tolerable). On the other hand, even after many months experimentation using iZotope dither, the losses tended to consistently make the sound more metallic, brittle and grainy - something I found difficult to tolerate with the classical music that I deal with - especially when it comes to massed violins and brass.

 

btw, I am not trying to advertise on behalf of PSP - I have absolutely no relationship with them in an capacity other than as a registered user of their products. However, I feel that my experiences reflect how much loss I experience with the removal of those 8 bits even when using a dither that I personally find to be significantly superior to any other I have come across.

 

I definitely agree with Barry's comments regarding the qualitative differences between 24 bits and 16 bits, regardless of what digital theory may or may not say about it. I think this is especially the case with classical music, especially given the vast dynamic range that can be involved.

 

I recently purchased the Reference Recordings production of Respighi's Belkis Queen of Sheba. Never have I heard a better example of how important a minimum of 24 bits is. I would almost argue that this recording presents a good case for further improvements over 24 bit - not in terms of signal to noise ratio but in terms of maintaining the full integrity of sustained, extremely low level program material played in a large acoustic environment with realistically "distant" miking.

[jerryct]

...Outside of that, I am not aware of its use other than during word length reduction, as from a 24-bit source to create a 16-bit version. I certainly have not used it in any other application.

 

Hi,

 

as dithering is in a simple case only adding white noise to the least significant bits and as most ADCs do not exploit the complete dynamic range of 144dB with 24 Bit, the noise of the electronics already dithers you the signal (i.e. adds noise to the least significant bits).

 

jerry

[gmgraves]

As someone who does a lot of CD mastering, the conversion of my 24 bit master files to 16 bit has been the most frustrating and objectionable process in my entire workflow. I agree with others that the drop to 16 bits is very audible yet the differences in sample rates are - to me at least - far less audible and relatively insignificant.

 

 

That certainly tallies with my experience as well.

[Don Hills]

Thank you, gentlemen.

 

My motivation for asking was because Barry's assertions were somewhat at odds with my own understanding, and I am seeking to reconcile them. I see an interesting pattern emerging: that the conversion from 24 to 16 bits is judged to be more damaging than the conversion to 44.1 KHz. This is somewhat at odds with the current "wisdom" in the audiophile fraternity, where the filtering required for 44.1 KHz is seen as being the major cause of damage.

 

Barry,

I have always understood that an ADC that does not use proper dither (TPDF at least) is broken. Are there still ADCs in use in production that don't dither? And I also understand that some studios still use 16 bit for tracking because their systems don't have yet have the processing power to do many tracks at 24 bit. I accept that I may be behind the times on this.

 

Jerry,

"self dither" with noise is generally considered to be somewhat less than optimum, though I suspect that wisdom applied more to lower bit depths than 24. I agree that dithering the last bit at 24 bits is "straining at gnats".

 

JonP,

You said:

I recently purchased the Reference Recordings production of Respighi's Belkis Queen of Sheba. Never have I heard a better example of how important a minimum of 24 bits is. I would almost argue that this recording presents a good case for further improvements over 24 bit - not in terms of signal to noise ratio but in terms of maintaining the full integrity of sustained, extremely low level program material played in a large acoustic environment with realistically "distant" miking.

 

I assume you mean 24 bits as a delivery format. What sort of dynamic range are you talking about with the above production? How does the acoustic and the miking require a larger range? (I do appreciate the desirability of a wide range, I have attended performances where I have found myself leaning forwards in my seat to catch the almost inaudible parts.)

[beetlemania]

I find 16 vs 24 bit a more significant improvement than higher sampling rate.

That's how I hear it, too. Using the Foobar "comparator", I can reliably distinguish 24/44 from 16/44 but 24/44 compared to 24/192 is in my realm of guessing.

[JonP]

I assume you mean 24 bits as a delivery format. What sort of dynamic range are you talking about with the above production? How does the acoustic and the miking require a larger range? (I do appreciate the desirability of a wide range, I have attended performances where I have found myself leaning forwards in my seat to catch the almost inaudible parts.)

 

It's around 80dB range on this recording. I find the range is so high that it reminded me as to why I no longer attend live concerts - the loud bits are quite simply too loud for me to comfortably tolerate. On this particular recording, in order for me to hear the soft bits with complete clarity, the loudest parts are extremely loud. You really have to listen to this recording at a true concert hall volume - something I have not experienced even with other Reference Recordings.

 

What I mean as regards the miking, etc is that obviously the further away from a source the microphone is placed, the less low level detail it is able to pick up from that particular source. That being the case, the options are to decrease the noise floor and increase the resolving power of the recording chain. Reference Recordings, as great as they are (and I think they are the best), still do not resolve the extreme inner details that I could easily hear at live concerts. For example, the meaty rasp of a newly rosined bow belonging to the inner violinist of the second desk of the second violins. Or the slightly more silvery sounding "e" string on the violin belonging to the lady on the outside 6th desk of the first violins.

 

Back in the not-so-good "CD" days, string sections sounded like one clump. In these days, the best 24 bit recordings can reveal the multiple sources of sound from the strings owing to the fact that you may have 5 to 7 desks, for example, for each section. So you can, for example, on a 24 bit recording hear the miniscule timing differences amongst the individual players, or particular players playing ever so slightly louder or softer than another. But you still don't get the ultimate level of detail - the types of things I previously mentioned. Yet when I hear the very best analogue recordings on a completely analogue, high end system, there is more of that sort of "ultra" level of detail I am eluding to, even though the signal to noise ratio of any analogue recording cannot approach that of 24 bit digital. So something is still missing in my opinion - it's an ultimate level of very low level resolving power that I feel is a function of the resolving power (or lack thereof) of even 24 bits at extraordinarily low levels.

 

In the Respighi I mentioned, whilst the range might be "only" 80dB, where does that leave subtle harmonic detail when the strings are already playing at such low levels? Barry has already mentioned the relativity of the harmonics to the fundamental tone - the difference is significant. So in these cases we are not very well off compared to pure analogue in my view, even with 24 bit resolution.

 

So, I will answer your question with a question. How many bits are left to fully resolve the overtones of a violin section playing at "pppp" levels when miked to provide a naturally "distant" perspective as one might hear, say, 16 rows back from the front in a very large concert hall? The sound each instrument makes is barely audible to the player 4 inches away from the instrument. It is a rhetorical question of course, since I can't provide an exact answer other than to say that I don't think there are enough bits left to do it justice.

[Don Hills]

It's around 80dB range on this recording. I find the range is so high that it reminded me as to why I no longer attend live concerts - the loud bits are quite simply too loud for me to comfortably tolerate. On this particular recording, in order for me to hear the soft bits with complete clarity, the loudest parts are extremely loud. You really have to listen to this recording at a true concert hall volume - something I have not experienced even with other Reference Recordings. ...

 

I'm not familiar with the work. I am assuming that this contrast was intended by the composer. If so, the "soft bits" may not have been intended to be heard with complete clarity, but rather to be almost subliminal in effect, right at the edge of perception. Otherwise I would expect the conductor to adjust the dynamic range to a reasonable level.

 

What I mean as regards the miking, etc is that obviously the further away from a source the microphone is placed, the less low level detail it is able to pick up from that particular source. That being the case, the options are to decrease the noise floor and increase the resolving power of the recording chain. ...

 

If that detail would be inaudible if you were sitting next to the microphone, why artificially attempt to capture it? (I expand on this later in my reply.) I do appreciate the limitations of microphones and the difference between what is captured and actually being there. My undertanding is that one might typically move the microphones a little nearer than one might position oneself "live", resulting in a drier recording, and hope that the reproduction in one's listening room acoustic "adds back" a semblance of the missing ambience.

 

On your comments about the comparative resolution of analogue versus digital, I'll just say that our experiences differ.

 

... So, I will answer your question with a question. How many bits are left to fully resolve the overtones of a violin section playing at "pppp" levels when miked to provide a naturally "distant" perspective as one might hear, say, 16 rows back from the front in a very large concert hall? The sound each instrument makes is barely audible to the player 4 inches away from the instrument. It is a rhetorical question of course, since I can't provide an exact answer other than to say that I don't think there are enough bits left to do it justice.

 

I can understand the desire to capture the whole performance, even the information that is effectively inaudible in the live performance such as the higher harmonics of the violins playing at pppp levels. My reservation is that it is not necessary to carry these through to the reproduction in one's listening room - all that is needed is enough information to recreate what you would hear live. You are the audience, not the violinist. I do accept that 16 bits may not be enough to do this in all cases, as pointed out in the paper by JR Stuart I referred to earlier.

[bdiament]

Thank you, gentlemen.

 

My motivation for asking was because Barry's assertions were somewhat at odds with my own understanding, and I am seeking to reconcile them. I see an interesting pattern emerging: that the conversion from 24 to 16 bits is judged to be more damaging than the conversion to 44.1 KHz. This is somewhat at odds with the current "wisdom" in the audiophile fraternity, where the filtering required for 44.1 KHz is seen as being the major cause of damage.

 

Barry,

I have always understood that an ADC that does not use proper dither (TPDF at least) is broken. Are there still ADCs in use in production that don't dither? And I also understand that some studios still use 16 bit for tracking because their systems don't have yet have the processing power to do many tracks at 24 bit. I accept that I may be behind the times on this....

 

 

Hi Don,

 

I'm not sure what all ADCs do. As I do all my work at 24-bits, I'm not sure how or if this even applies. I do know that one does *not* want to apply dither a lot as this has a sonic price in addition to its benefits. So, as far as what I actively do to a recording, I apply dither only once and only after every other process has been completed. Besides, even with the finest dither I've ever heard, 16-bits to my ears, still loses a great deal of musically significant information. To my mind, it is a "compromise" format -- the cassette of digital.

 

Your question is interesting and I'd have to ask the designer of my favorite A-D converters if dither is being used when the recording is at 24-bits.

 

As far as studios tracking, my experience has been that most of what I receive nowadays is 24-bits but tends to be at 44.1k because the systems just choke with anything higher. I haven't seen a 16-bit source since the '90s.

 

For my own perspective, I deem word length critical but at the same time, would not minimize the benefits of higher sample rates. As I just told someone earlier today, and have said here and elsewhere on many occasions, 4x rates (properly done) providing the very first (and only) time in my experience where I have yet to be able to discern the output from my direct mic feed. The very best 2x rates (i.e., 88.2 or 96k) at 24-bits still sounds to my ears, like "great digital" but will never be confused with listening to the direct mic feed.

 

So, I would not want to have to choose between wrecking a recording by keeping it at 16-bits or wrecking it by keeping it to 44.1k. Not when I can have well implemented 24/192 and find it sounds the same to me as listening to the mic feed. I've got what I've sought ever since I first got into recording music: the sound of the input itself. What else could be of significance? (The only "drawback" is that I can no longer blame the gear for any flaws in my recordings. Now, I must take complete ownership of the results. ;-})

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

...What I mean as regards the miking, etc is that obviously the further away from a source the microphone is placed, the less low level detail it is able to pick up from that particular source....

 

Hi JonP,

 

I have a different perspective. To my mind, it is too general and in fact, there is a point up close where I find a lot of information just won't occur. I find that certain sounds don't even form until a certain distance away from the subject. Also, get too close and the frequency response as well as the dynamic response gets skewed, not to mention the balance of harmonics from any given instrument. Instruments just don't sound the same from an inch away as they do from a few feet away. This is easily shown by trying it. Listen to instruments from where they are mic'd in typical studio productions and see if that is the position from which you really want to hear them. ;-}

 

I always ask musicians if they'd like to listen to their favorite horn player with their ear just inside the bell of the horn... or their favorite pianist with their head under the lid, just above the hammers... or their favorite guitarist with their ear up against the grill cloth of a Marshall stack. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[JonP]

I have a different perspective. To my mind, it is too general and in fact, there is a point up close where I find a lot of information just won't occur. I find that certain sounds don't even form until a certain distance away from the subject. Also, get too close and the frequency response as well as the dynamic response gets skewed, not to mention the balance of harmonics from any given instrument. Instruments just don't sound the same from an inch away as they do from a few feet away. This is easily shown by trying it. Listen to instruments from where they are mic'd in typical studio productions and see if that is the position from which you really want to hear them. ;-}

 

I always ask musicians if they'd like to listen to their favorite horn player with their ear just inside the bell of the horn... or their favorite pianist with their head under the lid, just above the hammers... or their favorite guitarist with their ear up against the grill cloth of a Marshall stack. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Actually our perspectives are more than likely the same. I actually agree with what you are saying but when I made those comments I was not trying to compare close miking (so as you might hear if you were having a violin lesson and your teacher was demonstrating something). I was comparing a technique whereby you might have the sensation of being in the front half dozen rows of the audience (so still, say, a good 30 feet minimum from the string players in a large concert hall) versus being more towards the middle / middle back of the same hall.

 

The old Mercury Recordings for example might be considered to have a front row perspective and some even a conductor's perspective, whereas the modern Reference Recordings tend to have a much more natural "mid hall" perspective. The old Everests tended in my view to be the best of both worlds - great inner detail combined with a natural perspective, helped by a "live" hall that produced great midrange clarity (Kingsway) for those recordings made with the London Symphony.

 

I feel I probably have a good appreciation of the various types of perspectives you have alluded to, having once been a violin student, having the sound of the instrument right under my ear for so many years, also playing in orchestras and getting that sonic perspective, then the sonic perspective of my own instrument played solo by me in a large concert hall (different sound yet again), the sonic perspective when conducting and then of course the perspectives from various hall positions - anything from 6 rows back to near the back of the hall.

 

In all of these cases no digital recordings that I have ever heard have emulated or successfully captured these real world perspectives that I regularly experienced first hand. I would also say that I have never experienced a situation where any particular inner levels of detail become more apparent the more "further out" I go, so long as I am at least in the front third of the main body of the audience. But yes I do agree, for example, that a dropped pencil from the music stand of the second violins can actually be more obvious from around a third the way into the hall than it might be from the front few rows. But then we could also be talking about the masking effects here due to being in closer proximity to other sounds in the overall mix which distract the ear.

 

Itzhak Perlman once commented that Jascha Heifetz sounded completely different in the concert hall versus his recordings. I'd never been a fan of his (Heifetz's) playing, disliking the abrasive, metallic, in-your-face sound (it was the type of sound I would hear myself on a very cold day if I put far too much rosin on my bow and played in a dry small acoustic). Of course, I could not understand though, why everyone praised such a justly famous player whereas I was always left cold. Then it dawned upon me that I had only ever heard his recordings on 16 bit digital CDs. When I began collecting his recordings in pure analogue form it was a revelation and the sound was far more like that which I tend to get from soloists during a real concert - perhaps around 6 rows back at least from a "detail" sort of perspective, though RCA did tend to highlight him relative to the orchestra as compared to "real life". I am a fan now, but no thanks to 16 bit digital.

[bdiament]

...Itzhak Perlman once commented that Jascha Heifetz sounded completely different in the concert hall versus his recordings....

 

Hi JonP,

 

I understand. Thank you for your reply.

 

Regarding Itzhak Perlman's comment about Jascha Heifetz, I think it can be said about almost anyone. I've always felt that John Coltrane did not sound like his recordings. And I'm pretty sure Elvin Jones' drums were never clipped in real life. ;-} Certainly 16-bit CD doesn't help and by comparison with the CD (at least to my ears) decent vinyl will get closer to the focus and fine detail of the original recording every time. But I've also long said that most of the ultimate quality of a recording has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the microphones (prior to the mic cables, much less the recording format). Very often, I find myself wishing the recording engineers felt the same way.

 

I'm reminded of some of my first views of galaxies through a good telescope. Like many other folks, my response was "they don't look like the photographs". It is the same with the players: they don't sound like the recordings. The mental adjustment brought about by such experiences is the realization that it is the photographs (and recordings) that are in error.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

...Barry,

I have always understood that an ADC that does not use proper dither (TPDF at least) is broken. Are there still ADCs in use in production that don't dither?...

 

Hi Don,

 

Okay, I looked into this as far as the A-Ds that I use. First, there is no dither on the A-D. At least not in the way I (and perhaps some others) tend to think of dither.

 

This is pushing at the outer boundaries of my understanding but to the best of that understanding, based on what the designer told me: The A-D chip itself uses a delta-sigma modulator with a decimation filter to convert from the high sample rate. This may be there to linearize the modulator and remove idle tones. Note that this signal (unlike what I think of as dither) is applied in the analog domain. Further, this it filtered out in the decimation process.

 

It would seem the way one thinks of dither would determine their perspective on this. As I have suggested (if not said), I think of it as a digital process applied during word length reduction (the only time I actively use it). That said, I suppose it is not unreasonable to think of the A-D process as a severe form of word length reduction. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[JonP]

Hi JonP,

 

I understand. Thank you for your reply.

 

Regarding Itzhak Perlman's comment about Jascha Heifetz, I think it can be said about almost anyone. I've always felt that John Coltrane did not sound like his recordings. And I'm pretty sure Elvin Jones' drums were never clipped in real life. ;-}

 

What I found funny about Perlman's comments is that he is as bad an offender as Heifetz was in my opinion when it came to overblown highlighting. Perlman's violin certainly is magic. Lsiten to those EMI recordings, not really helped terribly much by EMI's love for compression - even in the olden classical days.

 

You could argue that since most of the Heifetz RCA master tapes are 3 track, a new remastering can change the overall balance quite dramatically. Obviously we can't do it for a 2 track master. I am looking forward to hearing Ryan Smith's vinyl remasterings of the Heifetz RCA recordings - there are a few of them due over the next year (not sure if the SACD versions will be 3 or 2 track though). As I say, I fully expect a far more natural sound than I have heard previously on the 16 bit CD remasterings done over the years - and probably even the Classic Records vinyl released over the last decade if the first three remasterings he has already released are any indication.

 

Talking about violins and distance though, you'd be interested to hear of my experiences over the years. I always thought my teacher's violin sounded pretty scratchy and abrasive - nothing to do with her technique - she was a Galamian Julliard graduate after all, and that school just doesn't turn out dud players But I never liked it. By the same token, I brought a few different fiddles to lessons because I loved the under-the-ear sound. But she hated them and told me so in no uncertain times. For a couple of years I just didn't "get it". Then I realised what good violin sound was all about. What mattered was the sound from at least 20 feet away but preferably 30 feet away or more. A short time later I was given a Gagliano to play. One of these things literally costs as much as a house. They are often thought as the violin you get before you graduate to a Strad. Same thing. Nothing special under the ear. Nothing special even 6 feet away. Get it in a hall. Completely different story. The really top instruments are those ones that sound great no matter what though. Yes, you still need a great player to make it all happen, but the best example that comes to my mind presently is Pinchas Zukerman. Not only does the guy have a technique and bow arm to absolutely die for, but he is one of the very, VERY few players who will sound just as nice if he is jammed in your ear as he does in a small room, large room or concert hall.

 

All that said, I am still a sucker for that old German violin sound. Easy under the ear, creamy and smooth, but little carrying power and overwhelmed in a large environment. The single-ended triodes of the violin world as it were.

[JonP]

Speaking of the benefits of 24 bit versus 16 bit - even when the signal to noise ratio is relatively poor (and even when it is far below 96dB), here is a brief 1 minute excerpt from a transcription I completed last week. It's from the original vinyl recording (Mercury SR90210) with Joseph Szigeti playing Brahms. So the signal to noise ratio and the dynamic range of the original source are well below even the capability of the CD standard. Yet, the improvement in the 24 bit files versus the 16 bit file are obvious.

 

So I have included three files - the master at 24 bit, 48 KHz, another version at 24 bit, 44.1 KHz and then the CD standard 16 bit one. Yes, I know, I could have "fudged" the dithering a little in this instance and preserved more of that effortlessness and ambience of the 24 bit version - but at the expense of tonality and the accurate rendition of the violin sound. But this is still a typical result even with the very best word length reductions - you just lose a lot more than you might even with a non-integer downsampling.

 

Curse 16 bit! Just ask BIS records and almost everyone else of repute these days...

[JonP]

incorrect link

[JonP]

Hopefully this link works:

 

Download multiple files from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

[sandyk]

Hopefully this link works:

 

Download multiple files from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

 

JonP

I don't find that .flac sounds quite as good as the same .flac file converted to .wav then saved to a more electrically quiet location and played with cPlay from System Memory , so I converted them all to .wav to play. For some reason the .flac front end didn't much like the 24/48 version, so I had to convert it to .wav using Foobar 2000.

For lack of a better way of saying it, I will simply say that the 24/48 "came to life" even when compared with the 24/44 version , which was itself clearly better sounding than the 16/44.1 version.

It would be interesting to hear the different versions when not sourced from vinyl with all it's limitations in S/N etc.

Kind Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I was listening via ATH W1000 headphones.

[JonP]

Yes, I agree with the FLAC thing (as would Barry). I would hope most here would by now have the sense to convert to WAV prior to playback. You are right about the other issue as well. Here I am trying to demonstrate the 16 bit shortcomings regardless of dynamic range and signal to noise, but the 44.1 conversion in this instance is a bit more obvious than with heavier weight material so to speak. To my ears we are losing about 50/50 here (resampling and wordlength). Normally in my work, in subjective terms I get about 2% for resampling and 5% for the wordlength. I always wanted the CD standard to be 48 KHz / 20 bit right from the very beginning even if it might have taken us 3 decades to achieve the full potential. Oh well, it is what it is.

 

I see that TEAC have brought out a consumer "High Res" disc player. Apparently you can burn 24 bit files even onto a plain CD-R and there you go - you have much better sound to begin with. Maybe I should get something like that!

[Superdad]

I only have a few minutes this evening, but I'd like to jump in here with what I have experienced, and what I believe to be the real benefit of higher sampling rates, which most here seem to be overlooking (BTW, I have no bones to pick with 24-bit depth--it's beneficial for all the reasons previously stated.)

 

As someone who plays around with DACs (including sponsoring designs) and has a large library of CDs--plus some hi-res downloads, I feel that the benefits of high sampling rates are all on the playback side.

That is, higher sampling rates allow for lower demands / better performance of the digital filters (built into all sigma-delta DAC chips). And upsampling Redbook to 176.4 or 352.8 (with carefully tuned iZotope filter parameters) on the computer allows one to virtually bypass the DAC chip's necessarily compromised filter.

 

Myself I use a NOS PCM1704 so there are no filters to bypass--and the aliasing of straight 44.1KHz is not pleasant.

 

So does my point really make a case for 96KHz and above as a delivery medium? Not really. I frequently am disappointed by the "HD" albums offered as the remasterings are often rather poor in comparison to one of the CD releases of the same title. On a couple of occasions I have been able to d/l a 24/176.4 or 24/192 of a recording where the mastering chain was pretty much the same as the CD I had. With my well-tuned filter on the Redbook versus the HD version played native, the differences there were could probably be attributed mostly to the 24-bit depth.

 

But there are a lot of DACs out there with really lousy digital filters--including some very expensive ones. So please don't be too quick to pooh-pooh those people who hear good things at higher sample rates. Remember that those rates are having a real effect on the playback side!

 

Regards,

--Alex C.

[Don Hills]

... Okay, I looked into this as far as the A-Ds that I use. First, there is no dither on the A-D. At least not in the way I (and perhaps some others) tend to think of dither. ...

 

Thanks, Barry. I confess I haven't looked too hard at D-S ADCs, being a music consumer rather than a producer I've concentrated on understanding current DAC topology. I'll go down the ADC rabbit hole and see what I find...

[elcorso]

 

I have been familiar with Bob Stuart's work for many years now.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry,

 

Me too, but he evolved a lot on his digital thinking. In his last interview (2009 ?) he talked about a minimum source of at least 24/96.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

[sandyk]

Hi Roch

 

Anything to contribute about the test files that JonP has so kindly provided ?

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[elcorso]

Hi Roch

 

Anything to contribute about the test files that JonP has so kindly provided ?

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

I didn't see the link...!

 

Just downloaded but going to bed now... I had a rushed day. Then comments for tomorrow.

 

Many thanks JonP.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch