How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

[r_w]

I can agree with that... in a lot of systems it's probably more about DACs and how they filter than data depth / rate (after Redbook).

 

Redbook sounds great to me, I don't personally see the need to go with anything higher in my system.

 

I've compared very few hi-res recordings vs Redbook but at those few times 16/44 sounded the minutest bit warmer and was preferred - but that could be the re-mastering and/or the DACs filtering effect.

 

It's not enough to concern me either way really, I'd happily play either.

 

(I record at 24/48 but that is a required broadcast industry standard, not a preference)

 

All the system tweaks I've done are allowing me to hear ridiculous levels of detail with Redbook (that I never thought possible) and to be honest I actually don't want to hear any deeper... the balance is right and the music flows - any further dissection might possibly come at the expense of the music = not worth the risk.

 

... but as always YMMV.

 

 

you could see if there are any listening tests comparing - but... it may really be about filter slopes

[r_w]

That was a quite a good read and it generally concurs with my experiences - though I'm no digital expert and I have no crusade either.

 

I've always tended to believe that either audible waves (20-20) at discernible dynamic range are accurately (enough) being encoded and decoded or they are not... aside from that I have always assumed how the ADC / DAC and subsequent circuitry (and filters) dealt/deals with the 'signal' decided/decides the audible and measurable differences in the analogue domain (across 20-20).

 

... I would be interested to hear evidence to the contrary (purely out of interest however, not argument).

 

:-)

 

I've as of yet to find anything in our industry to impugn this presentation on why 16/44.1 is good as it gets for us.

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

[r_w]

The article appears to address that as a misconception?

 

 

"Above: Sampled signals are often depicted as a rough stairstep (red) that seems a poor approximation of the original signal. However, the representation is mathematically exact and the signal recovers the exact smooth shape of the original (blue) when converted back to analog"

 

With this image I am triying to describe graphically the advantage of a 24 bit file in regards to resolution as it was explained to me by Barry Diament:

 

- the effective resolution of a 16 bit file at -60dB is 6 bit

 

- the effective resolution of a 24 bit file at -60dB is 14 bit

 

Whether this is audible would depend I guess of quiet your room is, of how loud you are playing, of how "transparent" your speakers are.

 

R

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31047[/ATTACH]

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31048[/ATTACH]

[r_w]

Exactly mirrors my experience... the VEGA sounds fabulous with Redbook.

 

;-)

 

One of my strongest impressions of the Auralic Vega is how well it equalized the SQ between 16/44.1 and hi-res PCM content. This DAC has thoroughly convinced me that Redbook 16/44.1 is itself not lacking in resolution, detail, S/N, etc. Such equipment makes the SQ advantage of hi-res PCM rather difficult to demonstrate or showcase.

[r_w]

I'm my system the difference is too small to hear... not suggestion... real listening experience.

 

It might be how well the VEGA DAC does its job (or how badly other do theirs).

 

I'm confident enough that 16/44 delivers everything the ear needs for 'music magic' and therefore I'm missing nothing of concern.

 

Mathematically 24 bit is utterly superior to 16... but those extra 8 bits aren't being detected by my ears, so they are wasted.

 

For that reason I don't worry about hires.

 

As always YMMV.

 

;-)

 

 

It's kind of funny to hear guys who have dropped serious coin on their hifi turn around and suggest the difference between 24 and 16 is "probably" too small to hear. C'mon, man--how about those titanium speaker enclosures and the hand spun interconnects you bought last year?

[r_w]

Neither it seems can my ears come up with a sonic comparison.

 

I wonder if someone will chime in with something really solid that'll start me wondering if my brain has decided that hires is pointless and expectation bias is confirming my preference for Redbook?

 

;-)

 

... seriously though, if someone gave me my entire library in 24 bit (if that was possible) I'd obviously accept the gift and use it... but I'd never contemplate doing any work myself to get (any of) my library in hires. On my system that would seem a waste of time.

 

 

 

There is physically no way to correctly compare 16 and 24 bit from technical point of view.

[r_w]

I get that Jud... but the point of this thread IMO is rebook as source data being either good enough or not, what happens in the DAC afterwards is borderline off topic.

 

... and yes it's probably why the VEGA does such a good job with redbook, but I couldn't comment on that, only how it sounds.

 

;-)

 

But your system does. From a review of the Vega:The Auralic uses an ESS SABRE DAC chip to do this, foregoing ESS's internal upsampling to ~44.1MHz.

 

That's why these discussions always strike me as such a waste of time. Just about no one in these forums is actually listening to analog that's been reconstructed straight from RedBook. QUOTE]

[r_w]

That was Jud's quote not mine... but of course he's right about the amount of upsampling going on.

 

"Straight" is mean "without oversampling"?

 

There is no problem. Simply need invent analog filter with stop band 0 ... -120...200 dB in 20 ... 22 kHz band ;-)

[r_w]

I had a stunning listening session last night (purely redbook)... ended at 2am after a great meal earlier and plenty of alcohol. throughout.

 

... another one of those nights where everything 'just sounded great', quality of recording/mastering was not ruining the experience (it almost never does anymore), we were engulfed in the music of the subject material.

 

Played loads of tracks from cheap compilations, still was able to thoroughly enjoy every song. I would gladly sacrifice additional resolution if it risked a less forgiving presentation - I never used to be able to just play anything and really enjoy it.

 

... most of the tweaks that made this possible were learned here on CA.

 

Hats off to this place. ;-)

 

I am happy with the sound I get from Redbook and have yet to buy HR files or discs.

 

R

[r_w]

Not so sure about that... the question is whether 16/44 is good enough as source data to properly deliver the content within the hearing range of humans (frequency & dynamic range) on DACs than are designed well enough to let that happen.

 

"How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?"

 

... if one of his DACs tells him redbook is enough, then his post is right on topic in my book. If his other DACs don't, that's not necessarily redbook's fault.

 

 

---on a another note---

 

If we (CA) agree that freq range 20hz-20khz is being captured and reproduced, then dynamic range shortfall of 16 bit is next to examine, which is fine on paper but not much music contains huge dynamic ranges like that... DR Database for example makes for some depressing reading.

 

 

;-)

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense...

The question is not whether Redbook with your current DAC sounds better than HR with your previous DACs but how do Redbook and HR compare with your current DAC.

 

R

[r_w]

Hi Jud,

 

Good post, thanks for the explanation (TBH... I get a bit lost when talk moves to impulse / ringing / etc... that's way over my pay grade).

 

The answer to your closing statement might be:

 

Q. play some tracks... do you love what you hear?

 

A. If yes then play some more, if no, amend system, and/or go hires?

 

:-)

 

 

OK then, how should we identify adequate performance? What should we listen for?

Well, this comment is already long enough. Perhaps in my next one....

[r_w]

LOL, that covers Steve Gadd's drumming then.

 

Please..not this bull carp again. Redbook can encode timing to within about 55 picoseconds accuracy. It is not limited by the time between samples.

[r_w]

Hi George,

 

The main comparison I did was Weather Report Heavy Weather 24/176 vs my own CD rip... both versions sound perfectly enjoyable to the extent that I wouldn't use up extra disc space for a noticeable difference. Both versions sound tonally very similar - that album was always a little bright and thin (certainly not fat and buttery) - but it does sound very airy.

 

I listen to lots of classic rock, jazz fusion, some propg rock, good 80s rock/pop (Tears For Fears, etc).

 

I don't do classical very often, but given how everything else sounds I don't see why it would be represented poorly.

 

I think the key thing appears to be how well the DAC does redbook... the VEGA seems to excel in this area and that's why I'm enjoying it so much - and as I've voiced before, the system just seems to be so much more forgiving that any other system/config that I had before.

 

I will continue to enjoy... but won't rule out hires in case I hear something I've been missing.

 

 

;-)

 

What kind of music do you listen to? I ask because I notice the difference mostly (but not exclusively) on low level material. If one listens mostly to pop and rock where the dynamic range of the music itself ranges from loud, to louder and loudest, or, as in most modern CDs has had what dynamic range there is compressed to within an inch of its life, there isn't much in the way of low-level detail or large room ambience. Here, the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit is really profound. While my listening choice is mostly classical, I also like jazz and listen to it a lot. I have to admit that on most jazz recordings, I find it often difficult to impossible to tell 16-bit Red Book from 24-bit. There just isn't a lot of low-level material or hall ambience in that genre either to show off the advantages of the higher bit rate. Of course, if one compares the Red Book version directly with a real 24-bit (or DSD) version, you should notice a general increase in cleanliness of the higher sample rate version that one might not notice without a direct comparison. Even then, there are a lot of variables in a commercial release of either, that some might argue could account for that difference.

 

 

Well, the difference between a Red Book CD of a recording and a high-res version of same certainly is not on the order of the difference between a master tape and the LP made from it, so the high-res version most assuredly doesn't make the Red Book version unlistenable. Enjoy.

 

[r_w]

I agree mate, same as you.

 

... not criticising anyone but that's why I always bang on about building systems that make as much of the library sound great as possible... not just a few golden recordings - that pursuit really is missing the message in the music.

 

:-)

 

I wonder, too, if much of the perceived benefit of DSD comes from 1) identifying artifacts and knowing you can reliably hear them and then 2) hearing artifacts as evidence of inferior fidelity. So you're listening for artifacts instead of music *most* of the time. As a musician and engineer I'm always having to zoom in and out to have a faithful idea of what the thing actually sounds like. There is a point in hi-fi where you are missing the message.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[r_w]

That's how I read it (as long as the DAC does the right job with the data).

 

This thread is very good but for me as it has grown it seems to reinforce that the performance of the DAC with redbook source data decides if redbook is good enough, not that redbook can't be ever good enough as source data itself.

 

It ought to be the case however that most hires recordings will probably have had more care than redbook and that's a perfectly valid reason to choose it.

 

But the argument that 16/44 source data is unable to reproduce music to startling standards (to human ears) has not been made here (yet) - and that it happens in my lounge whenever I ask it to make that argument hard to accept.

 

;-)

 

Your figures prove that the 44.1 kHz sampled signal contains everything needed for accurate reconstruction. That incorporating a digital processing step aids in producing a quality output is completely beside the point.

[r_w]

Re: comparing classical... see if you can do the same experiment on an Auralic VEGA?

 

... if someone want to make available 2 files of classical 16/44 and hires, I'll try it out.

 

Luckily the UK is also a free country.

 

:-)

 

 

I think I gave my explanation for that.

By definition, of a DAC sounds great doing 24-bit, it will do 16-bit just as well.

That's perfectly OK it's (still) a free country

[r_w]

Which two files would you recommend I compare?

 

(I only want to do this once... comparing files isn't what music enjoyment is about)

 

:-)

 

You could try some of these:

 

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

[r_w]

Britten: Frank Bridge Variations - Romance TrondheimSolistene

 

Compared:

CD 16BIT/44kHz - 8 MB

24BIT/192kHz - 42 MB

DSD 1285.6448Mbit/s - 132 MB

 

Me: Difference is so miniscule it's hard to even describe and therefore in my system not worth any extra file size

 

Wife: "All sounds the same to me"

 

... end of experiment (and any fear of Redbook not being able to supply me with fabulous music (on the Auralic VEGA)).

 

;-)

 

 

Don't have any suggestions. Download all the 44 khz versions as they are smaller. Pick a couple you like and pick one of the highest resolutions you can play.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[r_w]

I think it's cool for everyone to go with the data format of their choice, for the music of their choice, if their gear highlights the differences enough for them then great.

 

Certainly there will be many great hires recordings to enjoy, but certainly there are also many fab redbook recordings to enjoy too.

 

Based on my admittedly tiny amount research the differences to me are way too small to induce paranoia.

 

I always focus on the emotion of the music so would happily forgo a bit of high-end energy for a lush and musical performance. I don't mind that filter 4 on the VEGA appears to trim the tops a bit early because the result is very nice on my ears.

 

Just because I haven't yet been convinced, doesn't mean I'm right of course, perhaps I'm lucky that it doesn't bother me that much and my system is pleasingly forgiving.

 

If anyone else does the "Britten: Frank Bridge Variations - Romance TrondheimSolistene" comparison and finds major differences, that's fine with me. 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH.

 

 

At age 46 with lots of recording / production experience my ears don't go as high as they used to, I think I'm maxing at 16-17khz now, maybe in my 20s when I was 'in the business' full time (I still am but not as main income) I would have thought differently.

 

 

;-)

 

 

It's difficult to find music I've listened to often enough that I'm familiar with it, that is available in even roughly sonically equivalent versions in different formats.

 

About the closest I've come personally is the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, which I have as a Steve Hoffman-mastered gold CD, an HDTracks 192KHz download, and as DSD (from an SACD). The high res versions sound more "open" to me, with more "air," as best I can describe it.

 

The difference between the two high res versions is smaller than between those and the CD. I prefer the DSD version because the 192KHz download has a very sllght "edge" to the vocals that doesn't sound absolutely right to me.

 

Of course all these differences could just as (perhaps more) easily be part of the engineering of the recordings, and that slight "edge" to the vocals on the download could be a faithful reproduction the DSD version euphonically rounds off. I don't know.

 

There are also the Beatles songs in 24/96 resolution in the recording of Cirque du Soleil's "Love." These are totally re-engineered versions (in many cases mash-ups and/or alternate takes) of the original songs, so direct comparisons are pretty well impossible. What I can say is that Those Voices, so emotionally resonant because for people of my generation they were the soundtrack of our lives as we grew up, have never sounded clearer to me, more as if I were sitting in the studio, as on that recording.

[r_w]

Err, no it doesn't.

 

But 'Weather Report : Heavy Weather' certainly does.

 

;-)

 

 

I don't know that the test tracks offered at 2L can provide the best comparison, unless Britten's Frank Bridge Variations stirs your emotions.

[r_w]

TBF most recordings aren't good enough to warrant massive resolution / bandwidth... so for that huge majority it's probably best not to spoil your enjoyment of that subject material by telling yourself it's not as good as it could have been because the file size isn't half a Gig.

 

... that's probably about where I am now with it. I would say enjoy the great composition, playing, singing, production that 'turns your pages', don't search for great recordings of crap music or performance.

 

:-)