There's been a lot of talk about this sampling rate, maybe...maybe too much talk

[[email protected]]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

[Booster MPS]

It's really about the music. What do you enjoy? I would never suggest something in a genre that you do not like.

[Savage]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

 

Pick a favorite genre and watch the recs pour in.

There are also some free sampler hi-res tracks from Qobuz, HDTracks, 2L and Channel Islands etc.

 

If you would really like to compare perhaps chose something that you already own in CD quality and see where the differences are on your own system.

 

I've almost forgotten the SoundKeeper recordings which have files available for comparison in different formats - http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[Teresa]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

 

Like us know what kind of music you like for specific recommendations. As a general recommendation the best sounding high resolution PCM downloads I've found are the 24/176.4 from Reference Recordings and the 24/192 from Chesky Records.

[RealAudio]

The idea of buying music because it's high rez is absurd and is in a way music hating. Take classical, you pick a piece of music and the performer. If its one of those few percent that are available in anything but standard cd and you think its worth the extra money, fine, waste your money. But to not buy a better performance from a world class artist to pick second rate performance from a second or third tier performer because its available in high rez is the ultimate act of music hating.

[Jud]

The idea of buying music because it's high rez is absurd and is in a way music hating. Take classical, you pick a piece of music and the performer. If its one of those few percent that are available in anything but standard cd and you think its worth the extra money, fine, waste your money. But to not buy a better performance from a world class artist to pick second rate performance from a second or third tier performer because its available in high rez is the ultimate act of music hating.

 

I'm very pleased to be able to access the DSD files on the hybrid CD/SACDs I have by my favorite classical and early music performer and conductor, Jordi Savall.

 

If you check out the music appreciation threads here (which are the largest threads on the site - see Album of the Evening), you'll see resolution is a minor consideration, and people do not assume higher res automatically sounds better. So wherever the music haters are, they don't live around here that I've noticed.

 

All that being said, there are some great performances of great music out there that are really well recorded and a joy to listen to in high res. When the OP tells us what kind of stuff he likes, suggestions will be ready at hand.

[RealAudio]

I'm very pleased to be able to access the DSD files on the hybrid CD/SACDs I have by my favorite classical and early music performer and conductor, Jordi Savall.

 

Jordi Savall is a good example. I'm also a big fan having seen him perform a number of time. He has some 100 some odd releases. Of those, about 90 or so are only available as standard cd. I've looked at that thread, and it doesn't contain very sophisticated or useful reviews. I'll stick with the reviews in gramophone or Alex Ross in the New Yorker. Although I know there is a view that any old listener is as knowledgeable as a trained musicologist, but I don't buy that idea.

[goldsdad]

I've looked at that [Album of the Evening] thread, and it doesn't contain very sophisticated or useful reviews.

 

Good, because it was never intended to be a review thread.

[firedog]

The idea of buying music because it's high rez is absurd and is in a way music hating. Take classical, you pick a piece of music and the performer. If its one of those few percent that are available in anything but standard cd and you think its worth the extra money, fine, waste your money. But to not buy a better performance from a world class artist to pick second rate performance from a second or third tier performer because its available in high rez is the ultimate act of music hating.

 

Or, we can clue him in to hi-res downloads that are significantly better sounding than the CD counterpart. Maybe it is only b/c of the mastering and not b/c of the resolution, but the fact remains that there are albums where a hi-res version is definitely the one to get, when best SQ of a specific album/work is the goal. How is this music hating?

 

So the OP wasn't being absurd. Your response was narrow minded, and probably made just to start an argument. We've seen it before, haven't we?

[InfernoSTi]

Don't listen to high res because it doesn't sound any better than CD quality is the same advice as don't listen to live music anywhere but NYC because it is always better there. In other words, it is nonsense based on one person's perspective and other people clearly have a difference of opinion.

 

Think about the source of these recommendations: if the source is hopelessly distorted to begin with, it is better to ignore it than to amplify it…

 

Best,

John

[firedog]

 

Think about the source of these recommendations: if the source is hopelessly distorted to begin with, it is better to ignore it than to amplify it…

 

Best,

John

 

Yes, but the OP is clearly a newbie here for some basic advice, it would be a shame if he took a serious listen to a distorted source and thought that was his benchmark.

[Jud]

I'm very pleased to be able to access the DSD files on the hybrid CD/SACDs I have by my favorite classical and early music performer and conductor, Jordi Savall.

 

Jordi Savall is a good example. I'm also a big fan having seen him perform a number of time. He has some 100 some odd releases. Of those, about 90 or so are only available as standard cd. I've looked at that thread, and it doesn't contain very sophisticated or useful reviews. I'll stick with the reviews in gramophone or Alex Ross in the New Yorker. Although I know there is a view that any old listener is as knowledgeable as a trained musicologist, but I don't buy that idea.

 

I guess I just have a different point of view, in that I feel there's helpful information in both the informal comments in the threads here, and the formal reviews in Gramophone. (I see Alex Ross's stuff less often because the Times is behind a paywall after 10 articles per month.)

 

It would be nice if you wanted to contribute something about Jordi Savall's recordings in the appreciation or review threads - I'd be eager to read it.

[ed71]

My suggestion would be to pick up a couple hi-res albums that match what your DAC can play back (e.g., 24/192), that you know you like, and for which you already own standard-res lossless rips. Compare them and see if you think the difference is worth the added cost of the hi-res versions. I have tried this with a few albums so far, and have been unable to detect a difference. Since it seems that I must have poor hearing, I'll be unlikely to spend the additional money for hi-res recordings unless I find some with clearly superior masters.

[gmgraves]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

 

OK. 24 and 32-bit is better than 16-bit, nothing ambiguous about it. It affords more headroom because it has a greater dynamic range. OTOH, in my experience, a sample rate of 192 KHz is overkill. Reason? 192kHz sampling gives an audio bandwidth of 96 KHz. Nobody can hear 96 KHz, sure, but much more important than that is the fact that there is NOTHING up there but out-of-band noise. The British Magazine "Hi-Fi News and Record Review" has a feature every month where they pick a number of high-res downloads (generally 24-bit, 96 KHz) and plot a spectrum analysis graph of the content. Their reason for doing this is to find those "high-resolution" recording which are merely 16-bit, 44,1 KHz recordings which have been up-sampled to 24/96 (a fraudulent act, BTW). Now, looking at the spectrum analysis for recordings that are true 24/96 (giving a true audio bandwidth of 48 KHz), one quickly notices that all audio content peters out in the low 30 KHz region! This is due to two reasons: Most important is that modern microphones have no response above this range, so that even if there was musical content up above, say, 32 KHz, the microphone couldn't resolve it (turn the sound waves into an electrical signal). Secondly, only a few instruments seem to have any output up that high, and even then, they are just harmonics of much diminished loudness. Pianos and trumpets produce significant harmonics in the low 30 KHz region, but that's OK, humans can't hear it anyway. What higher than 44.1 KHz sample rates really bring to the party is to move the sampling frequency further away from the audio passband. I'm not going to bore you with a technical dissertation about why this is desirable, but believe me, it is. A 96 KHz sample rate is plenty high enough to stay out of the way of the music and gives an audio passband of 48 KHz and this is certainly enough passband to capture anything that todays microphones can pick-up, and anything that any instrument can produce. Remember that the frequency range above that which any instrument can produce is just out-of-band noise, and it neither enhances the music nor the operation of the equipment, nor the listener's ears in any way shape or form.

 

I have recorded at most sample rates: 16-bit/44.1 KHz, 24-bit/48 KHz, 24-bit/88.2 KHz, 24-bit/96 KHz and 24-bit/192 KHz as well as DSD (SACD's recording format) and I have to say that I can't hear any real difference between 48, 96, or 192 KHz sampling rates. Of course, understand that everything I wrote above is merely MY OPINION; backed by a lot of practical experience, sure, but still, just my opinion.

[RealAudio]

My suggestion would be to pick up a couple hi-res albums that match what your DAC can play back (e.g., 24/192), that you know you like, and for which you already own standard-res lossless rips. Compare them and see if you think the difference is worth the added cost of the hi-res versions. I have tried this with a few albums so far, and have been unable to detect a difference. Since it seems that I must have poor hearing, I'll be unlikely to spend the additional money for hi-res recordings unless I find some with clearly superior masters.

 

 

Actually, there is a perfect example of that I own. The new reissue of the Solti Ring that includes both standard CDs and a blue ray with a lossless 24 bit version. I've done my own limited double blind testing between the two with myself and a few other Wagner nuts I know. No one was able to reliability distinguish between the two versions playing the identical tracks. I then compare Solti to the Keilberth ring, a live recording from 1955. Much less sophisticated recording equipment and available only on standard CD. The Keilberth ring is a much more emotional and accurate to Wagner's vision than Solti. Both Keilberth and Solti feature Han Hotter as Wotan, but Hotter is so much better in the Keilberth Ring, with nuances that Solti couldn't get (he was younger and in better voice also). Its the performance not the illusion of better reproduction claimed by high rez.

[RealAudio]

[quote name=Jud;313339 (I see Alex Ross's stuff less often because the Times is behind a paywall after 10 articles per month.)

 

Alex Ross writes for the New Yorker Magazine not the New York Times. He does outstanding reviews. He has also written two great books on music' date=' The Rest is Noise and Listen to This

 

Amazon.com: The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century eBook: Alex Ross: Kindle Store

 

Amazon.com: Listen to This eBook: Alex Ross: Kindle Store

 

The New York Times has Anthony Tommasini. The main difference is that The New Yorker Magazine has the space for Ross to write long essays. He did pages on 4 or 5 bars in Die Walküre (no, not the ride).

[Jud]

Sorry, yes, don't know why I was thinking of the Times. I have read many of Ross's reviews and occasionally stop by his blog.

[junker]

To hear the advantages of 24-bit just listen to a very quiet passage where quantization noise is a problem with the 16/44.1 and listen for a metallic, grain. Solti's Wagner has great opportunities to listen for this...

 

Here are some further comparative comments:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/recording-january-2013-wagner-ider-ring-des-nibelungeni

 

In the very dark music of the prelude to Act II of Siegfried, the 1997 CD still had lots of unavoidable hiss; the hiss is audible on the new CD, but the greater palpability and texture of timpani heads and the increased "blattiness" of the low brass now take the fore. On BD, the hiss seems much lower in level, but perhaps only in contrast to the smidgens of greater bottom- and top-end extension, which make big differences in the experience of this music. They particularly affect the voice of Gustav Neidlinger when he enters—his sibilants and consonants are far more audible; in contrast, all earlier digital editions suddenly sound muffled.

In the prelude to Siegfried Act III, the new CD has increased clarity in the rising brasses in the background figures of this complex music. The BD adds to this a wonderful sense of "air" for the piccolo and flutes at the climax, which tend to either get buried by the churning brass and violins, or just become part of a general high-frequency hash. Not here, not any longer.

With the beginning of Wotan's Narration in Act II of Die Walküre, I heard no difference between the 1997 and 2012 CDs. But as I listened to the BD, I realized that the subtle differences I was hearing applied to all of these test passages. At 24/48, my experience of the music as it unfolded in time seemed to slow and expand. It wasn't Solti's tempos that seemed slower; rather, my experience of musical duration itself had altered. More musical information was being presented within a given span of time, which increased the density of musical meaning per moment. A minute, an hour seemed longer while listening to BD—not because it was more dull or tedious or difficult to endure, but because so much more was happening within it.

Listening to the last section of Brünnhilde's Immolation Scene, in Act III of Götterdämmerung, as I switched from 1997 CD to 2012 CD to 2012 BD, the sense of audible space among instruments and parts, and the depth of the soundstage, increased. But on the BD, when Birgit Nilsson hit one of her uniquely perfect high notes, the space—the hall—seemed to open up above and beyond my speakers. Or rather, the sense of musical space seemed to have grown. This sort of audible improvement, repeated again and again, quickly became indistinguishable from a sense of increased mental space in which all of this glorious music and sound could be more capaciously entertained.

[RealAudio]

To hear the advantages of 24-bit just listen to a very quiet passage where quantization noise is a problem with the 16/44.1 and listen for a metallic, grain. Solti's Wagner has great opportunities to listen for this...

 

Here are some further comparative comments:

 

Recording of January 2013: Wagner: <I>Der Ring des Nibelungen</I> | Stereophile.com

 

In the very dark music of the prelude to Act II of Siegfried, the 1997 CD still had lots of unavoidable hiss; the hiss is audible on the new CD, but the greater palpability and texture of timpani heads and the increased "blattiness" of the low brass now take the fore. On BD, the hiss seems much lower in level, but perhaps only in contrast to the smidgens of greater bottom- and top-end extension, which make big differences in the experience of this music. They particularly affect the voice of Gustav Neidlinger when he enters—his sibilants and consonants are far more audible; in contrast, all earlier digital editions suddenly sound muffled.

In the prelude to Siegfried Act III, the new CD has increased clarity in the rising brasses in the background figures of this complex music. The BD adds to this a wonderful sense of "air" for the piccolo and flutes at the climax, which tend to either get buried by the churning brass and violins, or just become part of a general high-frequency hash. Not here, not any longer.

With the beginning of Wotan's Narration in Act II of Die Walküre, I heard no difference between the 1997 and 2012 CDs. But as I listened to the BD, I realized that the subtle differences I was hearing applied to all of these test passages. At 24/48, my experience of the music as it unfolded in time seemed to slow and expand. It wasn't Solti's tempos that seemed slower; rather, my experience of musical duration itself had altered. More musical information was being presented within a given span of time, which increased the density of musical meaning per moment. A minute, an hour seemed longer while listening to BD—not because it was more dull or tedious or difficult to endure, but because so much more was happening within it.

Listening to the last section of Brünnhilde's Immolation Scene, in Act III of Götterdämmerung, as I switched from 1997 CD to 2012 CD to 2012 BD, the sense of audible space among instruments and parts, and the depth of the soundstage, increased. But on the BD, when Birgit Nilsson hit one of her uniquely perfect high notes, the space—the hall—seemed to open up above and beyond my speakers. Or rather, the sense of musical space seemed to have grown. This sort of audible improvement, repeated again and again, quickly became indistinguishable from a sense of increased mental space in which all of this glorious music and sound could be more capaciously entertained.

 

 

Yea Yea, they remastered the CDs, and if you don't tell people if they are listening to the standard CD or the 24 bit version, none of the people I know could tell the difference. In fact, in one of the comparisons I did, the person selecting the source indicated it was the 24 bit version when it was actually the standard cd version and everyone said how much better it sounded. Stereophile isn't a credible source. There's a reason that Decca is only including the 24 bit version as a throwaway in their special release, that is because they are honest. They know if they sold the 24 bit version as a stand alone for a premium price, their would be significant customer push back when they discovered no one could actually hear a difference. If fact, although there's a smattering of SACD, not major classical label seems to issue 24 bit versions, what do they know that you don't?

[Jud]

 

Jordi Savall is a good example. I'm also a big fan having seen him perform a number of time. He has some 100 some odd releases. Of those, about 90 or so are only available as standard cd.

 

On the web site of his Alia Vox label, there are 95 recordings available, with 62 available in SACD and 33 available in CD only.

 

Edit: And a couple of DVDs, plus CDs put out by his son and daughter.

[Jud]

With the launch Pono, I've heard more noise about 192k than ever before. From the celebrity cheerleaders to those that say it is totally unnecessary.

 

Being relatively new to the HiFi game, I'm not completely jaded...yet ☺. I would like to give it try. For those that are proponents, can you recommend a favorite recording that you feel really showcases the purported advantages?

 

Regards,

Clay

 

So we still don't know what you like.

 

But if you like the Beatles, you might try a little experiment by buying "Love," which comes with both a CD at 16/44.1 and DVD-Audio at 24/96. (There are directions on the site regarding how to rip audio DVDs.) I think the alternate takes George Martin and son used on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" sound terrific. Have a listen and see whether you think the 24/96 sounds different (better, worse) than the CD rip.

[gmgraves]

Actually, there is a perfect example of that I own. The new reissue of the Solti Ring that includes both standard CDs and a blue ray with a lossless 24 bit version. I've done my own limited double blind testing between the two with myself and a few other Wagner nuts I know. No one was able to reliability distinguish between the two versions playing the identical tracks. I then compare Solti to the Keilberth ring, a live recording from 1955. Much less sophisticated recording equipment and available only on standard CD. The Keilberth ring is a much more emotional and accurate to Wagner's vision than Solti. Both Keilberth and Solti feature Han Hotter as Wotan, but Hotter is so much better in the Keilberth Ring, with nuances that Solti couldn't get (he was younger and in better voice also). Its the performance not the illusion of better reproduction claimed by high rez.

 

 

I don't doubt your experiences at all. The Solti "Ring" master tapes are analog recordings made on late 60's vintage audio tape by British Decca. Most record companies didn't maintain their tape recorders above about 15 KHz, so most rolled-off very fast above that. This was compensated somewhat by the fact that the condenser microphones of the age from the likes of the typical condenser mike of Neumann and Telefunken and AKG, etc. had acid-etched brass diaphragms (modern mikes use metal sputtered Mylar or similar materials). Being metal, they are a lot heavier than modern mike diaphragms, and therefore have a huge resonance peak, usually around 16 KHz after which they drop-off like a stone (the average condenser mike of the 1960's was up more than 5 to 6 dB referenced to 1 KHz at 14-17 KHz. This peak BTW, is why lots of early CDs sounded so shrill. They were still using those microphones). Few, if any recordings, had any response at all above 17-19 KHz. This means that 44.1 KHz sampling is quite adequate, and little will be gained by going to either 96 or 192 KHz. I find that most analog recordings are not improved by high-res digital transfers. I have both a hi-res transfer of the Getz/Gilberto Bossa Nova album from Verve and the CD (and the LP). I can't tell any difference between the 24/96 hi-res recording and the CD and the LP simply sounds better than either.

[gmgraves]

Yea Yea, they remastered the CDs, and if you don't tell people if they are listening to the standard CD or the 24 bit version, none of the people I know could tell the difference. In fact, in one of the comparisons I did, the person selecting the source indicated it was the 24 bit version when it was actually the standard cd version and everyone said how much better it sounded. Stereophile isn't a credible source. There's a reason that Decca is only including the 24 bit version as a throwaway in their special release, that is because they are honest. They know if they sold the 24 bit version as a stand alone for a premium price, their would be significant customer push back when they discovered no one could actually hear a difference. If fact, although there's a smattering of SACD, not major classical label seems to issue 24 bit versions, what do they know that you don't?

 

 

It's true. Commercial recordings often do not show SACD to be any better than regular Red Book CD. I have a perfect example. When BMG released about 100 of RCA's best Red Seal classical titles from the "golden age of classical recording" I bought the entire catalog. Several of the titles, I was later sent to review by JVC in the guise of their "XRCD24" process. Even though they copied the master tapes at 24-bit, the resultant product is 16-bit/44.1 Khz. One of them, Prokofiev's "Lieutenant Kiji" With Reiner and the Chicago Symphony sounds so much better than the SACD of the same mid-fifties performance that it makes the trouble that BMG went through to convert all those recordings to DSD seem like a monumental waste of time.

[InfernoSTi]

It is so odd to me that the same folks who advocate that Redbook CDs are all we need don't also propose that all digital recordings be made at 16/44, as well. But of course they recognize that 24 bits should be the minimum for recording and mastering and that higher sample rates would be great for capturing all information that is possible, regardless of if it can be heard. Better is better and maintaining S/N during editing is a good thing. So why would converting to a lower bit rate be preferred for a recording recorded and mastered in 24/44 or greater?

 

Why would anyone say it would sound better to take a recording at 24/44 and reduce it to 16/44? Not analog tape conversion. Not DSD. Just recorded and mastered at 24 bits (and whatever sample rate they used). And if nobody is saying that, then what exactly are they saying?

[InfernoSTi]

It's true. Commercial recordings often do not show SACD to be any better than regular Red Book CD.

 

I've got one that is the opposite. Pixies Doolittle. The CD sounds very run of the mill, nothing you would listen to as a demo disk, even if you liked the music. Now listen to the SACD DSD rip. It sounds wonderful. The kind of sound you would use as demo material even if you were tepid on the music. Do we say it is all due to the mastering and that it should just have been released on CD instead of SACD? Perhaps, but what would be gained by doing so? If all I can get out of such a conversion is a loss of information, why do it? What is the value from such a conversion?

 

John