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

[Miska]

2L's recording are technically good, but not my favorite kind of music and not very demanding. But usually the ones that have solo violin or a small violin group are the best, just listen how accurately the violin body material sounds in the recording. So switch your hearing (hearing is very adaptive!) from listening fundamental tones to listening the underlying cues instead. This is like what I was training sonar operators to do, don't listen to the loud surface traffic like cargo and passenger ships, listen to the little things lurking behind the loud noise.

 

For storage space and file size, best way to choose sampling rate and word length is to analyze every recording and pick up rate and word length that best matches the content. I went though the 2L's available free tracks in original DXD format and they have content up to about 58 kHz and about 18-bit worth of dynamic range. So I decided to use 120 kHz sampling rate and 18-bit word length for my test FLACs that resulted in smaller files than band-limited MQA encodings. So in my encoding case nothing was removed from the content. Naturally playing back such 120/18 files is not a problem with HQPlayer or other similarly capable playback systems, DAC can be running at any other rate such as 192/24 or DSD256 or whatever.

[mansr]

It's beside the point you are making (that more samples aren't needed to accurately represent the waveform), but is possibly still quite relevant to the OP's question about whether a higher sample rate makes for better digital audio.

 

Can we agree that the engineers who designed 8x oversampling into DAC chips decades ago did so for solid engineering reasons? And if that's granted, then can we go from there to saying there is no engineering reason for a decimation-interpolation sequence in the middle of the recording/playback chain, but this exists solely as an artifact of the way the music industry has evolved?

 

There's a solid reason for that: it saves tremendous amounts of storage space and transmission bandwidth.

[Jud]

Well if PCM 48/24 (or 96/24) is enough, then bits and sampling at that are enough whether via some purist version that performs as it should or whether you have in between DSP. If we go straight to some higher rate and higher number of bits transmitted that sounds like an unengineered method that will work. An engineered method is more efficient.

 

That is before we mention recording, mixing, mastering, and processing being easily doable in PCM. Then upon playback digital volume control and Room EQ that sort of thing also being easily handled in PCM formats. If the cost is some measured inaudible improvement and simplicity at the cost of those things plus a higher bit thru put, doesn't sound like a clear cut great trade off to me.

 

There's a solid reason for that: it saves tremendous amounts of storage space and transmission bandwidth.

 

 

Wow, talk about making a virtue of necessity! The engineers who developed 8x oversampling within a very short time after digital audio was first marketed were not operating from an "unengineered method," they were engineering the solution that gave acceptable results at greatest cost and resource efficiency. 352.8/384KHz sampling rates are not "some purist version," but what was acceptable performance to non-audiophile engineers working for major consumer corporations trying to sell to the mass market decades ago.

 

Of course you're correct that currently at least engineering of recordings is more easily done in PCM. That's the 8x oversampling I was mentioning. So the "debate" would be between maintaining DXD (8x) rates all the way through and DSD conversion, which allows less expensive filtering (that's why delta-sigma has become ubiquitous, it's cheaper for what we'll call, without wishing to get into the old PCM-DSD debates, a substantially equivalent result).

 

I live in a semi-rural setting a few miles from a town of 4,000 people, and the download speed from my ISP (a cable company that is a relatively small local family owned operation) is 50mbps, soon to double to 100. I can buy a 4TB external HDD for a little over $100. When you talk about storage space and bandwidth, you're really reprising my argument that the RedBook standard is an artifact of history - digital audio was developed when storage space and bandwidth were much greater limitations than they are today for most people in a position to be concerned about things like the sonic impact of boutique power supplies.

 

It is very likely that the engineers who designed 8x oversampling into DAC chips decades ago did so for solid engineering reasons as engineers dislike doing things irrationally (tho are sometimes forced to do irrational things by their MBA Overlords).

 

But best practices decades ago may also not be best practices today.

 

 

Indeed they may not be best practices today. Do you think those practices would have evolved in the direction of *more restricted* capabilities than a couple of decades ago, or greater capabilities?

[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

[Jud]

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.

 

;-)

 

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, than on that recording.

[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.

[Jud]

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.

 

 

;-)

 

 

 

I've got a few years on you, so it's not hearing acuity.

 

 

The great bulk of my music is RedBook, and nothing I've said here is aimed at having anyone, including me, forego the great listening experience those recordings offer. Putting it very simply, this isn't an "either/or" but a "yes, and" thing. To go back to my previous example, I've had decades of enjoyment from that Pet Sounds CD; it's still in my collection, and if a song from it comes up on shuffle play, it still holds me rapt. You can get a great musical experience from RedBook input as it is handled by modern hardware and software. *And* you can get a great musical experience from hi res, sometimes from the same or similar content as you've enjoyed in RedBook. Whether you want to pay for that is of course up to you, always realizing that hi res doesn't necessarily mean better quality. The 20th Anniversary edition of Nirvana's Nevermind, for example, was somewhat less satisfying than taking the money and burning it. (So many of Kurt Cobain's songs got their drama from the extreme contrast between droning, contemplative verses and screaming, full-out grunge choruses; the 20th Anniversary edition squashed the DR, and the life, from all those songs.)

 

 

Because music is such an emotional experience, 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. Something I'd suggest for anyone who wants to bother is making your own test tracks by upsampling offline, using software such as Audiophile Inventory or SoX. You can do this with music that is intimately familiar to you and that you love, and be assured there are no differences in mastering, etc., to interfere with comparison on the basis of sample rates alone. (Audiophile Inventory has a volume adjustment for DSD conversion that allows you to make DSD versions without the usual 6dB drop. I don't know whether this facility is available in the demo version of AuI, but it may be. I think SoX may allow this as well, but there could be a problem of inter-sample "overs" if I recall.)

[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.

[Blake]

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.

 

 

To me, this point is important and seems to be ignored with great frequency. It is a massive elephant in the room for our hobby in general.

 

How can anyone claim music format A is more accurate than format B, or DAC A is more accurate than DAC B by simply listening? Further complications arise because no variable can be isolated- we listen through a system of boxes and wires, and we all have unique listening rooms. I would submit not even the musicians or the recording engineer could tell us whether something is accurate by listening.

 

We can (and should) measure everything, and those measurements can be very helpful, but unfortunately those measurements don't provide a complete map.

 

 

See e.g. A Tale of Two Speakers | Stereophile.com

 

 

We can listen and make a subjective determination whether something sounds more real or more appealing, but we can't know if what we are hearing is "accurate" to the recorded event. Yet, people make these accuracy claims all of the time.

 

Of course, if I am missing something here, please, someone "show me the light".

[esldude]

Wow, talk about making a virtue of necessity! The engineers who developed 8x oversampling within a very short time after digital audio was first marketed were not operating from an "unengineered method," they were engineering the solution that gave acceptable results at greatest cost and resource efficiency. 352.8/384KHz sampling rates are not "some purist version," but what was acceptable performance to non-audiophile engineers working for major consumer corporations trying to sell to the mass market decades ago.

 

Of course you're correct that currently at least engineering of recordings is more easily done in PCM. That's the 8x oversampling I was mentioning. So the "debate" would be between maintaining DXD (8x) rates all the way through and DSD conversion, which allows less expensive filtering (that's why delta-sigma has become ubiquitous, it's cheaper for what we'll call, without wishing to get into the old PCM-DSD debates, a substantially equivalent result).

 

I live in a semi-rural setting a few miles from a town of 4,000 people, and the download speed from my ISP (a cable company that is a relatively small local family owned operation) is 50mbps, soon to double to 100. I can buy a 4TB external HDD for a little over $100. When you talk about storage space and bandwidth, you're really reprising my argument that the RedBook standard is an artifact of history - digital audio was developed when storage space and bandwidth were much greater limitations than they are today for most people in a position to be concerned about things like the sonic impact of boutique power supplies.

 

 

 

 

Indeed they may not be best practices today. Do you think those practices would have evolved in the direction of *more restricted* capabilities than a couple of decades ago, or greater capabilities?

 

Your only making our point for us Jud. I didn't imply that going to 8x oversampling filters was un-engineered. Given the 48/24 PCM format and doing what it takes to reach results at the very edge of theoretical perfection is excellent engineering. They built black boxes that take the relatively low bit rate in, and put out near perfect results. What happens in between, delta-sigma etc etc. is the engineering part.

 

Now using DXD at 384 khz/24 bit is the sledge hammer approach. And for what can only be called minimal or perhaps non-existent benefits. The mis-guided purist idea that since we end up at 384 somewhere anyway, we might as well just do 384 khz is the issue.

 

Do the saved bits matter? I live in a suburban area with 6 mbps internet near a town of 150k people. You only get close to that between 1 am and 6 am. Otherwise about half. On Sundays and holidays you get sporadic 400 k service. So no at least for some of us redbook is not yet an artefact of history. And if redbook or slightly beyond redbook is done well enough there is nothing audible to gain, then there is nothing audible to gain. An idea that doesn't market well.

 

What about multi-channel? I don't find multi-channel an incredible advancement. It is however a good solid genuine improvement which one has no trouble whatsoever hearing as such. Should I go 384 khz for stereo or with similar bandwidth uncompressed 7.1 multi-channel with 48 khz for each channel? Heck we'll just do 384 multi-channel or DSD 256 as Miska has already told us it works fine. In fact I see no reason not to just bump to DSD512, you know, just to be sure. DSD1024 will be relatively available in 3 years time I believe. Maybe a bit soon for that yet. It will take time, but we'll get to that 20 ghz I mentioned earlier.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do the saved bits matter? I live in a suburban area with 6 mbps internet near a town of 150k people. You only get close to that between 1 am and 6 am. Otherwise about half. On Sundays and holidays you get sporadic 400 k service. So no at least for some of us redbook is not yet an artefact of history. And if redbook or slightly beyond redbook is done well enough there is nothing audible to gain, then there is nothing audible to gain. An idea that doesn't market well.

 

Ah, MQA is going to be your favorite thing!

 

Only kidding folks. We now resume the originally scheduled programing.

[esldude]

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)).

 

;-)

 

Same results I get and when I play it for others or myself.

 

I've done some recordings of musician friends at both 48khz and 192 khz. No processing done. As pure as can be done. Played both, and asked which was better. Played over a good system too mind you. I got sort of blank stares with comments like, "both sound fine", "what's supposed to be the difference", "I don't know, you listen to that kind of stuff more than we do, which is the best one to you". If there were large benefits I don't think you would get those responses. You didn't get that kind of reaction when you first played DVD to someone who only had VHS tape. You didn't get that response when you played Blurays to people with DVD. You don't get that response when people with HDTV see 4K.

[esldude]

Ah, MQA is going to be your favorite thing!

 

Only kidding folks. We now resume the originally scheduled programing.

 

Well even MQA isn't enough to fix my situation. You are right however, if MQA can really make a difference at the smaller bandwidth it fixes a real problem. Of course there is more going on than just that with MQA. Maybe I need MinQA.

[Miska]

Your only making our point for us Jud. I didn't imply that going to 8x oversampling filters was un-engineered. Given the 48/24 PCM format and doing what it takes to reach results at the very edge of theoretical perfection is excellent engineering. They built black boxes that take the relatively low bit rate in, and put out near perfect results. What happens in between, delta-sigma etc etc. is the engineering part.

 

Now using DXD at 384 khz/24 bit is the sledge hammer approach. And for what can only be called minimal or perhaps non-existent benefits. The mis-guided purist idea that since we end up at 384 somewhere anyway, we might as well just do 384 khz is the issue.

 

CD resolution was necessary for storage devices of 80's, but nowadays we have several orders of magnitude more storage space.

 

If you want the most engineered version, use for example AAC-HE (High Efficiency) for storing your RedBook music. It will compress it into 96 kbps stream.

 

Do the saved bits matter? I live in a suburban area with 6 mbps internet near a town of 150k people. You only get close to that between 1 am and 6 am. Otherwise about half. On Sundays and holidays you get sporadic 400 k service. So no at least for some of us redbook is not yet an artefact of history. And if redbook or slightly beyond redbook is done well enough there is nothing audible to gain, then there is nothing audible to gain. An idea that doesn't market well.

 

I'm living in a rural area in a municipality of about 5000 people. I get 100 Mbps 4G/LTE downlink for 20€/month. Yeah, 4K NetFlix works just fine. And of course no problem listening Tidal streaming in car while driving around.

 

Local operator just announced that their 5G service will start in 2018.

 

What about multi-channel? I don't find multi-channel an incredible advancement. It is however a good solid genuine improvement which one has no trouble whatsoever hearing as such. Should I go 384 khz for stereo or with similar bandwidth uncompressed 7.1 multi-channel with 48 khz for each channel? Heck we'll just do 384 multi-channel or DSD 256 as Miska has already told us it works fine.

 

I already have some material in 5.1 channel FLAC compressed 352.8k sampling rate as well as DSD64 and DSD256. Downloading those has not been particularly time consuming.

 

Of course you can always download just 44.1/16 version of the file if you are concerned about bandwidth usage and storage space. But, IMO, it doesn't mean that everybody else should settle for the same!

 

In fact I see no reason not to just bump to DSD512, you know, just to be sure. DSD1024 will be relatively available in 3 years time I believe. Maybe a bit soon for that yet. It will take time, but we'll get to that 20 ghz I mentioned earlier.

 

Yes, and it's not a problem. Computing power, storage space and transfer speeds develop faster.

 

10 TB HDD costs 500€ at the moment. Having array of 3 or 5 of those will handle audio just fine.

 

I'm recording 4K/30fps and 2.7K/60fps videos using multiple GoPro's, and taking RAW+JPEG photos with 24 Mpix full-frame DSLR. Storing that amount of data has is more challenging than storing hires music.

 

Doing 360 degree video with six 4K GoPro's is also more processor, RAM and storage intensive.

[Miska]

Well even MQA isn't enough to fix my situation. You are right however, if MQA can really make a difference at the smaller bandwidth it fixes a real problem.

 

Why would you use it, when you can get even smaller bandwidth usage with standard FLAC and no need to invest in new DAC?

[Miska]

You don't get that response when people with HDTV see 4K.

 

Oh, I've seen many claims that human eyes are not accurate enough to tell difference between 1080p and 4K...

 

Many people just haven't learned how to listen, they are much more trained in using their eyes than their ears. Just ask any blind person...

[Ralf11]

Harmon or somebody has an online course on training your ears

 

 

Jud, practices could have easily evolved in the direction of *more restricted* capabilities than a couple of decades ago, to fit into ipods

 

and it seems they have

[mansr]

Oh, I've seen many claims that human eyes are not accurate enough to tell difference between 1080p and 4K...

 

Depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance. With sizes and distances common in most homes, even 1080p is beyond what most people are able to resolve. Besides, most streaming content doesn't take full advantage of 1080p. The difference between Netflix and a good Bluray can be quite striking.

[esldude]

Oh, I've seen many claims that human eyes are not accurate enough to tell difference between 1080p and 4K...

 

Many people just haven't learned how to listen, they are much more trained in using their eyes than their ears. Just ask any blind person...

 

Specious reply Miska.

[sdolezalek]

I think a big part of what makes this discussion difficult is that we are now into such a minute level of differences that many systems don't reliably pick them up and depending on what equipment we have in the chain may determine how much of the difference we actually hear.

 

For example, I can fairly reliably tell a difference between a Tidal 16/44 file and a digital 16/44 copy of the same file on my NAS. I can also tell the difference between what I listen to at 16/44 and what I uprez to DSD128 in HQPlayer. I also believe I hear differences between well recorded DSD256 files and a 16/44 version of the same file.

 

BUT, I only hear those differences on my main system, my others are simply not resolving enough to matter, AND, better recordings always trump lesser ones irregardless of resolution. That being said, adding all of the incremental improvements together means what I'm listening to today is a hurge improvement over what I heard from the best CD playback in the same system just a few years ago. So I applaud the ongoing work of Jussi and others to continue to make tiny adjustments that may be insignificant on their own, but that ultimately add up to greater listening enjoyment.

[mansr]

For example, I can fairly reliably tell a difference between a Tidal 16/44 file and a digital 16/44 copy of the same file on my NAS.

 

How do you know you're listening to the same file? It could be different masters or different down-conversions from a high-res format.

[Jud]

Harmon or somebody has an online course on training your ears

 

Jud, practices could have easily evolved in the direction of *more restricted* capabilities than a couple of decades ago, to fit into ipods

 

and it seems they have

 

Yes, but you were talking about *best* practices.

[Jud]

I'm recording 4K/30fps and 2.7K/60fps videos using multiple GoPro's, and taking RAW+JPEG photos with 24 Mpix full-frame DSLR. Storing that amount of data has is more challenging than storing hires music.

 

 

Sounds like a candidate for Amazon's unlimited storage at $60 a year.

 

(Is that available outside the US?)

[Jud]

Same results I get and when I play it for others or myself.

I've done some recordings of musician friends at both 48khz and 192 khz. No processing done. As pure as can be done. Played both, and asked which was better. Played over a good system too mind you. I got sort of blank stares with comments like, "both sound fine", "what's supposed to be the difference", "I don't know, you listen to that kind of stuff more than we do, which is the best one to you". If there were large benefits I don't think you would get those responses. You didn't get that kind of reaction when you first played DVD to someone who only had VHS tape. You didn't get that response when you played Blurays to people with DVD. You don't get that response when people with HDTV see 4K.

I agree that many differences are subtle, at least for anyone who doesn't know what to listen for. Some differences are more evident on particular equipment (e.g., minimum phase filters in my experience result in less good imaging with the Vandersteens). At the same time I can well believe that for experienced people like Miska the differences would be more evident. Of course then one gets into the more difficult and interesting questions, such as whether a difference that isn't consciously audible for you may nevertheless subconsciously affect your enjoyment.

[mansr]

Sounds like a candidate for Amazon's unlimited storage at $60 a year.

 

(Is that available outside the US?)

It's officially available in the UK (at roughly the same price), and anywhere else if you register an account on amazon.com rather than a local domain.