16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[PeterSt]

Not many are going to agree ...

 

Quote

So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas

 

Maybe you forgot your DAC ?

[PeterSt]

16 hours ago, numlog said:

Luckily 24 bit 44.1kHz are pretty common now but there is so much music, particularly electronic and hip hop, where its true essence will be lost inside this inferior format.

 

Actually you have no idea. Hip-hop was my genre (OK it still is but not the modern sh*t and I don't prefer it any more) and electronic has become my genre, from a sheer "testing" point of view (I have 3000 - 4000 albums of the "ambient" genre, think C.J. Catalyzer, Bluetech, Boozoo Bajou, Don Peyote - to name a few you have hopefully heard of).

This type of music has it all for the lowest to the highest and most transient etc. and rock or jazz fully pales in comparison. But you need to come by and listen to see what I mean.

You have no clue ...

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, numlog said:

Since Aphex Twin's

 

Try Bucephalus Bouncing Ball (on Come to Daddy). Of course you need a reference of how this "bouncing ball" can sound in reality (which is a synthesized sound in the first place), but say that if you don't hear it bouncing any more at the highest frequency (of bouncing) then your system isn't fast enough or your tweeter is burned for that matter. And dare play it at 120dBSPL of course. 

If you hear overtones coming up, all is wrong ...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

High resolution audio sounds better, that's a ** FACT **.

 

No sir, it is not.

It is a FACT though, that your digital chain is so lousy (you tell that yourself) that you won't be able to discern a bit from a byte.

So who are you to come up with such facts ?

 

Are you in the neighborhood soon ?

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, numlog said:

what are you saying... what do i have no clue about?

 it sounds like you misinterpreted the post

 

You have "no clue" what's all possible with 16 bits. That's what I meant. and this was the context to understand it :

 

Quote

But you need to come by and listen to see what I mean.

 

Maybe it should be noted that I am working on 16 bits explicitly because there's too much of Redbook around not to. This includes software, DAC, PC, actually the full chain. All to "expose" 16 bits. There's so so much more possible than most people know.

You have no clue. 

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

There is no serious counter opinion.

 

There's mine. And I seem more serious than you.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, numlog said:

hence it could benefit the most from 24 bit, so thats why its a shame so many albums will only ever exist in 16 bit. understand my point?

 

I understand your point, but it is a moot point. It is moot because

a. the way my (Phasure's) chain does it, you won't be able to discern any profitable difference in the first place;

b. the hires material isn't there in the first place so why bother.

 

2 days ago I once again listened to King Crimson's The Court of the Crimson King (with I Talk to The Wind as the highlight). Imagine me telling you that it won't get any better today SQ wise - also not with any Hires. And do you know from what year it is ? Key point here is : find that one and only decent original transfer and skip the remasters let alone the hires laughter.

Or try the early Ice-T's for that matter. You really won't get better sound (quality) than that. And my point is : you probably don't recognize it because your system requires hires to perform.

 

PS: I have over 2000 hires albums. I never ever play them. Also not the handful which are from the same master. It is just not necessary ...

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

so, what IS possible with 16 bits - give us a clue

 

Now I'm speechless for a change.

[PeterSt]

19 minutes ago, numlog said:

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Electronic and hip hop has some of the best recordings and also the best music...

 

The later Young MC's ... Maybe Faithless., Beastie Boys (is quite challenging for SQ), Massive Attack. Paris, if your system is up to it (when not it sounds so-so, when it is, it is superb).

The "best music" could be doubtful, even to me. But it is my genre anyway.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

just write it down without speaking

 

I thought I was always doing that ?

[PeterSt]

Or try Rammstein's Rosenrot, if you want to know what 16 bits is capable of outside "electronic" music.

Nothing much ? then it is your system.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, numlog said:

If you are also using HQ player could you explain how?

 

Very first clue (haha) is not to use that. But I am not here to talk anybody out of his software of preference.

Like with HQPlayer the key is the filtering and 10 years or so ago I created the Arc Prediction filtering for that. This anticipated the NOS1 DAC which did not even exist on paper (only in my mind) and from that came the rest (in 2009 the NOS1 did 24/384 back at the time, as a first, and a year later or so 24/768, also as a first).

So yes, it is about the way the filtering/upsampling is done and this is really the base. Plus a DAC which can digest it 1:1 without destructive filters (that's why it is NOS/Filterless).

 

Today this results in a most audio dedicated PC with a 20 up to 40 cores cpu, linear power supply which in the Mach III incarnation is super fast, and this super fast now almost fully creates the sound (which indeed exhibits speed speed speed - like my mention bouncing ball implies (I am not talking about the bouncing balls of AC/DC, though they are fine too)).

 

In between is the OS tweaking software (more than any AO and Fidelizer and what not together) and this all seriously matters.

Oh, not to forget 6GH capable interlinks over 100+ meters. And from here : say that over-sizing is the key.

Not mentioning Lush USB cables ... that's about it. Unless we count in the speakers as well.

 

End of commercial ?

Anyway, of course I am the most serious. I work on it very explicitly ...

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

This is where the sub in my main system really makes itself heard.

 

Which track in particular ?

I don't know this, so now I like to try it ...

 

Speaking about sub ... try Hatfield's End (all three of them). It's the best of ambient/electronic and those with classical interest will like this too.

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Quite a few through the album.  I am listening at my computer right now, so not getting the full effect but song #2 has a heck of a bass track.

 

OK, got it (Tidal), prepared for the next listening session. 

Very curious as I never heard of Nathaniel Merriweather who is Dan the Automator who is Daniel Nakamura.

On to Tidal for more !

 

Thank you AudioDoctor.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/4876-music-to-make-love-to-your-old-lady-by/

 

Plug 3 of De La Soul

 

Haha.

Maybe he was also contestant #3.

 

 

[PeterSt]

Btw, about De La Soul ...

 

 

do you know that one ? maybe not.

Apart from this being "special" regarding there are no lyrics on it (let alone advisory texts), half of the tracks of this one is full of super cool electric bass riffs. Ehm, that's how I judged it when I played it on the fairly new Stealth Mach III audio PC, a few months ago when I found this album. I even mentioned it on the Phasure forum.

Then later I played it on the predecessor of the Mach III - the Mach II (also with Linear Power Supply, but  not tuned for speed). To summarize that experience : I was shocked. There were no firm electric basses at all. It now looked, felt and heard like bass flodders - woolly nothing. It rendered the whole album worthless. Nothing special.

 

Of course the subject is 16 bits (this album is too), but all I want to say with this post is : a stupid PC is already do or die. And then to think that the Mach II was my (self designed) Audio PC of choice for 2 years with xx customers using the same. We were all the most happy with it. And now suddenly another PC/design makes it trash.

 

Moral : without experiences like these, nobody can say that 16 bits is nothing and 24 bits is all. There's just too many other variables at play.

Now see what you can make of this album. Try to detect the electric basses : https://listen.tidal.com/album/70518588

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Summit said:

The difference between Red book and 24 bit 88.2 and 96 KHz is no night and day difference, but is audible on recordings that are well recorded.

 

Now that I can agree with.

[PeterSt]

Just now, audiventory said:

In high resolution, It is easier to implement lesser distortions technically.

 

For me 44.1 kHz and DSD64 are most sophisticated in implementration.

 

Also something to agree with !

[PeterSt]

47 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

One of my quirks, listening to some old Hip Hop opened my eyes to it though.

 

Do yourself a favor and start with the early days of it. And then really the early days. Take Rapture from Blondie to get in a (kind of flawed) mood and next jump to Rapper's Delight (Sugar Hill Gang) - the 14+ minute version - which could well have been the first (Maybe the Blondie was a first single).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapper's_Delight

You see Debby Harry (Blondie) mentioned there as well.

 

 

This was my very first "rap" album. Btw one which at first was quite unplayable because of being too tinny on computer playback (not CDP), but these days 100% normal (go figure - Al Stewart's Year of The Cat is also such an example).

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Key point here is : find that one and only decent original transfer

 

Which one are you referring to? There are multiple versions, even on CD.

 

Good question ... (I only have stored the front cover of it, and this tells nothing).

All I know is that only after a couple of years I found "the" one on CD, whereas the Hires version was there for a longer time already (and that one you one want to listen to). Anyway, it is not the HDCD version, of which also two exist ...

 

Currently I'm coincidentally working on comparison software, showing me the least compression for the versions (of any album) I have.

[PeterSt]

21 hours ago, numlog said:

16 bits is just way to low.

 

What do you use for volume attenuation means ?

What DAC do you use ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, numlog said:

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

What do you use for volume attenuation means ?

What DAC do you use ?

 

3 minutes ago, numlog said:

Lossless volume control with UDA38Pro DAC

 

No, I dislike the grain/ loss of detail of 44.1kHz to DSD64 conversion.

 I prefer native DSD64 over all PCM so it's not the DAC or a preference for so called called PCM ''sharpness''.

 

 

I was fishing for digital attenuation in the digital domain and then using 16 bits only (which would be a cause !).

But I now guess that's not the culprit.

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, Andyman said:

 Even the man in the background with the 70’s porn star moustache (part of the “band”?) is looking on in pain...

 

It must be OK because it says "HD".

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers.

 

No suppose everybody would believe you. How would this audiophile world of yours look like ?

[PeterSt]

 

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

Some of the earlier recordings were very good indeed, but it took much more recent DACs and output stages with much improved S/N to do them justice,

 

I have to agree with this.

 

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

as they were recorded at maximum  levels well below those used these days,

 

Like with Roberta Flack eh ? I mean, I see the mistake made regularly in this thread - the recordings were from long before 1983 (like 1973 (or maybe actually 1969) for this Roberta Flack).

 

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

as they were recorded at maximum  levels well below those used these days, and had little (if any) compression.

 

So transferred to digital, yes. And the key is to find the transfers which were just new as close as possible to 1983. I mean, back in those days nobody had learned to destroy recordings (by means of too much compression).

 

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

" Roberta Flack-Killing Me Softly"  was a good example of the earlier CDs that earlier players were unable to do justice to.

 

So, maybe. Fact (for me, over here) is that the oldies by now sound the best. Not "a few" but most. And "the best" means better than any later remaster or new recording. Say it is the sad truth.

 

Something else is that we never know how something sounds, unless we can compare. Example :

The right hand one you may not know, but it comes from this one :

 

Compare Track 01 of the left hand grid with Track 04 of the right hand grid.

The former should be the "original" while the latter is a collection but with a better transfer hence even higher DR (this is the |12.5| figure). Indeed it is so that the former has a relative very low "maximum level" (only uses just about half of the digital headroom) while the latter is better on it. So in this case the collection album contains the better transfer (of that particular track). Btw, I always play this one and it sounds plainly superb.

 

As a bonus, this one :

 

 

 

As you see, it can always be done better. So the guy who did this squeezed out 19.2 (Track 06). But all he did was taking into account the available headroom (with some "interpretation" we can see he did not do this per track).

So should this be the best version ? maybe. Is that because it is 24/96 ? of course not. It has the largest DR though, so it should be good.

But it is vinyl, so maybe not ... or it is - depending on your general preference.

 

Peter