24/96 vs 24/192

[Cemil]

My present setup (Amarra Mini) allows me to go up to 24/96 "only". It is quite a hefty upgrade price to go to the full fledged Amarra which handles the higher resolutions.

 

Some material is starting to come out in the higher resolutions (at a price though!).

 

I know this is a pretty subjective question, but I would appreciate some feedback on the differences (improvements presumably) one gets from going to the higher resolutions (above 24/96), comparing them with the ones one gets from normal CD to 24/96.

 

[wooster]

Hi Cemil

 

I posted a few days ago under the title "High v Mid v Low Resolution" to the effect that I'm not sure I can detect differences between 24/192, 24/96, 16/44.1 and even iTunes downloads.

 

In a way, I suppose this disqualifies me from having any right to answer your question, but I would just say that, before spending a lot of money on getting 24/192, are you sure that you can easily tell the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1 on the same recording?

 

[Cemil]

Hi Wooster,

 

I saw your post, but I was under the impression that you downsampled everything to the same level.

 

Fyi, on most recordings, 24/96 is significantly better than 16/44.1 in my system (and normal CD is much much better than mp3). I am using the same DAC for both CD and file server. SACD is much closer to 24/96 than normal CD.

 

 

 

[wooster]

I created downsampled versions of 24/192, 24/176.4 and 24/96 files and compared the various downsampled versions to the originals as well as to each other.

 

If you can easily detect the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1, then I suspect that 24/192 will be a further improvement, but I'm afraid that's only a guess. I just haven't been able to hear the difference myself so far.

 

[BobH]

I, too, would have to say that the differences between high res files and their Redbook sisters is not a given for me. I have a number of albums in more than one resolution and I would not describe the differences I hear as an improvement worthy of significant amounts of my money.

 

I have Blue Coast Records' 'Blue Coast Collection', as one example, that to me just amounts to a volume change! I have to turn up the volume on my Tact, from 62 to 74, to get the same listening volume. The quiet version is 24/96. I can discern no other difference.

 

I think it's a real 'horses for courses' thing. If you can hear a difference, on a number of different styles of recording, then it will be worth chasing, if you can't then it won't. That's your starting point. If high res works for you then there would be no reason not to invest in it.

 

[aps]

The question, for me, is whether music that I want to listen to will be available in 176 and/or 192 kHz formats. It seems that right now most of the high-definition music is sold as 24/96 and, even then, this is only a small fraction of the all new music releases. My impression is that the transition towards 24/176 or 24/192 hasn't gained any real traction in the past 12-months but this is just a guess and it'd be interesting to get some facts.

 

Regards,

APS

 

 

[coot]

My DAC goes to 96/24 and only plays classical . I have downloaded a dozen or so selections from HDTT and HD Tracks. The VARIATION in sq between different recordings seems to be greater than I ever noticed with 41/16.

 

[wooster]

I take your point, which I think is that, maybe, the higher resolution is removing some noise/distortion that otherwise obscures the differences between recordings.

 

The trouble is that if you are not comparing the same recordings at both 24/96 and 16/44.1, you don't know that it's the resolution that's the issue. It could just be that there really is a much bigger variation in recording quality among the relatively small sample of 24/96 recordings that you have - especially since the HDTT recordings are not going to sound like modern multi-miked digital recordings, which I'm guessing might be the source of the HD Tracks samples.

 

Incidentally, I've always found the variation in sound quality between CDs to be enormous - though not so much on classical music, I admit. I've also heard pretty significant differences between different CD issues of the same recording, but that's another subject...

 

[coot]

I just finished listening to the fabulous 1980 Jack Renner/Telarc recording of Orff's Carmina Burana. The sound is amazing in every 'phile way (not to mention a stunning performance by the late great Robert Shaw with Atlanta). This was one of my first cd purchases and continues to be a pearl of a demo disc 30 years later. I gotta say, it sounds better that some (most!?) of my hirez downloads.

 

[firedog]

I think hi-res is no different from any other form of music: some is well recorded and well produced and sounds wonderful, some isn't and is a waste of time - you're better off in many of these cases sticking with 16/44.1k.

 

As far as 176k and 192k, I have a few tracks that sound great. But I'm not sure if this is because of the format, or because they were recorded/produced carefully with the end format (extreme hi-res) in mind. In general though, the format is still mostly a curiosity, as so few tracks exist in 176 and 192. (The same is true even for 96k, if you are a pop/rock fan.)

 

If I was you, I think I would hold up on investing the hundreds of dollars in Amarra unless there is quite a bit of music in 176 and 192 you want to listen to. Maybe you can find someone else who has the full Amarra version and do some listening sessions to find out if the extremely hi-res formats are worth it for you.

 

I have had some very good results extracting 96k audio files from DVD-A releases (used the free DVDA Explorer).

 

In general, I'm skeptical that we can hear the difference between 96k and 192k tracks, if that is the only difference between them.

 

[Masis]

I find high rez materials sound significantly better. I have played with high rez many years ago, and back then, I did not notice the difference to be as big. But as I upgraded my system and moved it into a dedicated room, the difference became much more significant.

 

I suspect if you cannot hear the difference, it has more to do with your setup than your ears (because the difference is really quite big). And I am not saying you have a bad setup... but anything from ambience noise, a DAC that can handle high rez doesn't mean it can do it well. Also, even 'amps' and 'speakers' really do have a 'resolution limit'. You may have maxed out any one of the components in your chain and so the difference you perceive is minimal.

 

E.g., I had a DartZeel pre+power for a few years. High Rez sound diff, but imho, not significantly so. Now I am feeding the Berkeley Alpha directly into the Pass XA160.5, a much simpler path, and the difference between Redbook and 24/96 is truly significant. The thing is, Berkeley + Pass is a LOT less money than the DZ combo... once again proves that less can be more in my case.

 

Regarding the original question. I do find the jump from 16/44.1 to 24/96 to be more significant than jumping from 24/96 to 24/192. The improvements are still there, but not as significant... say if 16/44.1 to 24/96, the difference is a '10', I'd say the jump from 24/96 to 24/192 is another '5' or '6'. Maybe I am hitting a limit of my setup...

 

[Cemil]

Thanks for the comments. Since there's little material right now in 24/192 and since it seems I already have most of the improvement by using 24/96, I'll stick to the Mini version of Amarra.

Unless they bundle the upcoming Amarra Vinyl in the full version, that is ..

 

[Shadorne]

Include me in the camp that is doubtful about the "technical" benefits of higher resolution for playback.

 

Sure - there is no doubt that studios need higher resolution - that is a given. The fact is that properly recorded CD format is more than good enough.

 

However, most modern CD's are mastered for mainstream consumption using audio compressors to increase the loudness and suppress the dynamic range of the original music (better for your car, restaurant and other noisy environments) - inevitably this means that you are more likely to find better quality recordings in higher resolution formats (simply because the target market is audiophiles rather than the mainstream)

 

[Russ Reed]

The main sonic difference for me was the switch from my old CD player to computer based audio. I use JRiver and an Ayre QB-9 DAC. The quality difference in 16 / 44 was stunning. The limited music that I have in 24 / 96 does sound very good, but the quality of the recordings is probably better also. I would bet if I had a really good CD player the difference would not be as noticeable. I sure like what I hear now!

 

Good listening, Russ

 

[wooster]

When you detected the differences between high resolution and CD, were you comparing different resolution versions of the same recordings? All of the high resolution recordings I have sound fantastic, but so do lower resolution versions of the same recordings - and still much better than the usual run of CDs.

 

The differences between the high resolution recordings and most CDs convinced me for a while that high resolution was making all the difference - until I experimented with down-sampled versions of the same recordings.

 

I know I keep making the same point, but I just want to be sure that we are comparing like with like.

 

[Masis]

Hi wooster,

Yes I did compare the same recordings. I try to be as 'scientific' as possible. e.g., Many Michael Tilson Thomas recordings of Mahler symphones are available in High Rez and Redbook downloads.

 

One track that is dramatically different is Spanish Harlem from "The World's Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recordings" (available on HDTracks). There is also a 16/44.1 version from a Chandos CD. Anyway, this track really stood out. Don't know why that is the case.

 

On top of what is available, I have downsampled some high rez files myself using Wave Editor, which uses iZotope's 64-bit SRC. The result is similar, true high rez files always sound better.

 

The most noticeable differences are the spatial cues... the sense of the recording venue. The next thing I notice is that the tones are much richer, fuller sounding. Third thing that stands out is the decay. Everything just 'connects' together better.

 

 

 

[wooster]

Hi wslam. OK. Can't argue with that - and thank you for replying.