Mac Observer says 44/16 is all you need

[gmgraves]

Digital Music: Can You Hear Above 16-bit/44.1kHz? - The Mac Observer

 

Here we go again, another computer journalist jumping on the low resolution is enough bandwagon.

 

 

I wonder if that grossly un-informed opinion is in any way a result of the fact that Apple seems to be refusing to upgrade either iTunes or the iTunes store to directly play or sell high-resolution audio?

[trithio]

I wonder if that grossly un-informed opinion is in any way a result of the fact that Apple seems to be refusing to upgrade either iTunes or the iTunes store to directly play or sell high-resolution audio?

 

It has of course a lot to do with Apple's position. That does not make it 'grossly uninformed' in any way. And also not different than all 'highres sounds better' opinions coming from people who sell it.

And neither side seems particularly interested in testing their claims.

[gmgraves]

It has of course a lot to do with Apple's position. That does not make it 'grossly uninformed' in any way. And also not different than all 'highres sounds better' opinions coming from people who sell it.

And neither side seems particularly interested in testing their claims.

 

 

If you record live music, like I do, you get to test the hypothesis about the quality of hi-res all the time, and I guarantee you that it makes a difference. 24-bit sounds better than 16-bit and it's easily demonstrable on original material. Sampling rates higher than 48 KHz are 'iffy', but one can easily hear the difference in bit-depth and more bits is definitely better. The reason why I specify original material, is because with commercial recordings, the mastering and production process is often much more important to the overall sound than is the bit-depth and sample rate, and it's difficult, if not nigh impossible to judge sound quality on any commercial recording based upon any particular set of criteria without knowing the recording's provenance. IOW, a great recording might be great because it is high-res, or it might be because it was carefully mastered using good capture practices and was carefully produced and manufactured. Conversely, a bad sounding recording, irrespective of its resolution, might be bad sounding simply because it was indifferently captured, poorly produced and/or haphazardly manufactured.

 

IOW, you cannot judge the total efficacy of hi-res recording and playback practices using commercial recordings. There are simply too many other variables which have just as big of an impact on ultimate playback quality as does the sample-rate and bit depth of the recording. As I've said before, I have red book CDs which actually sound far better than SACD and 24/96 LPCM versions of the exact, same material. I also have native high-res recordings that sound far worse than the best CDs in my collection. That basically means that few audiophiles are in any position to have an informed opinion about the worth of high-resolution audio in anything but the grossest manner based upon empirical experiences of only the most limited of examples.

[senorx]

It has of course a lot to do with Apple's position. That does not make it 'grossly uninformed' in any way. And also not different than all 'highres sounds better' opinions coming from people who sell it.

And neither side seems particularly interested in testing their claims.

 

The only kind of study I would trust in this realm would be one designed by those who are truly unbiased, i.e., someone with no commercial interest in the result. Unfortunately, the only people (other than crazies like us..., sorry,me) are people with a vested interest in the outcome. Audio is an area in which it seems that it would be easy to control for variables not being tested. But "it seems" is by no means the same as "it is." If I had a bunch of $ I'd fund it myself.

[trithio]

The only kind of study I would trust in this realm would be one designed by those who are truly unbiased, i.e., someone with no commercial interest in the result. Unfortunately, the only people (other than crazies like us..., sorry,me) are people with a vested interest in the outcome. Audio is an area in which it seems that it would be easy to control for variables not being tested. But "it seems" is by no means the same as "it is." If I had a bunch of $ I'd fund it myself.

 

I was actually thinking about a kickstarter campaign to fund tests like that. Or even a special kickstarter-like site for such things. That could wirk if soomeone had the time and skills.

 

For gmgraves

You probably know my position about anecdotes by now. Would be great if you didnt take it personally or hunt me for it like others do. I just happen to hold dear a few principles about opinions from people with stakes in the game. Pretty much what senorx summarized very well above my post

[gmgraves]

I was actually thinking about a kickstarter campaign to fund tests like that. Or even a special kickstarter-like site for such things. That could wirk if soomeone had the time and skills.

 

For gmgraves

You probably know my position about anecdotes by now. Would be great if you didnt take it personally or hunt me for it like others do. I just happen to hold dear a few principles about opinions from people with stakes in the game. Pretty much what senorx summarized very well above my post

 

 

I neither take your comments personally, nor am I interested in hurting you. I took your comment at face value and responded that since I have first-hand knowledge of the effects of different sample-rates and bit-depths on music that I have, myself, recorded (as opposed to taking my opinions from samples gleaned from commercial recordings - the provenance of which I do not know), that my opinions on this matter at least have the virtue of being informed. I delivered this statement without rancor or prejudice. If you think that makes me trying to be hurtful, then you don't know me very well. I try to keep personalities out of my comments (although, being human, I'm not always as successful as I would like to be.

[trithio]

I neither take your comments personally, nor am I interested in hurting you. I took your comment at face value and responded that since I have first-hand knowledge of the effects of different sample-rates and bit-depths on music that I have, myself, recorded (as opposed to taking my opinions from samples gleaned from commercial recordings - the provenance of which I do not know), that my opinions on this matter at least have the virtue of being informed. I delivered this statement without rancor or prejudice. If you think that makes me trying to be hurtful, then you don't know me very well. I try to keep personalities out of my comments (although, being human, I'm not always as successful as I would like to be.

 

That sounds so normal and thoughtful, I have to pinch myself first. Especially after reading the thread where CA witch burns both prot and me.

Thank you. And I do value first hand anecdotes like yours. It is just that I value independent tests and confirmations much more. Really hard to find any of those nowadays. Good luck with the higres recordings, I'm sure it is all done with best intentions and equipment.

[alfe]

That sounds so normal and thoughtful, I have to pinch myself first. Especially after reading the thread where CA witch burns both prot and me.

Thank you. And I do value first hand anecdotes like yours. It is just that I value independent tests and confirmations much more. Really hard to find any of those nowadays. Good luck with the higres recordings, I'm sure it is all done with best intentions and equipment.

 

Happy that you still alive:)

People will think I'm completely obsessed by dither but it's the only issue with 16/44.