16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[esldude]

45 minutes ago, numlog said:

You are right the title is misleading, its mostly the obsession with perfection that makes it 'almost unlistenable'. It's sickening to have spent so much time improving something then to have no control over the core part.

snippage........

 

Don't ever start recording then.  I've done a little recording.  Making high fidelity recordings isn't really much of a puzzle.  However, there are a myriad of reasons such things are a commercial non-starter.  And almost as many as why even non-commercially you can't get there from here.  Most available recordings are a shadow of the full fidelity they could be.  But you can't listen in the car, you can't listen over your phone when out and about, and you aren't constantly bombarded by notable sounds nobody wants them.  Frustrating to know what is possible and what you can get people to accept.  Simple recordings that aren't processed can sound so nice, calm, and offer good verisimilitude of reality.

 

If you want to try some nice ungimmicked recordings try those Mario Martinez has offered for download to members here on CA.  Play Classics.  Here is a recent offering. 

 

 

[Summit]

1 hour ago, numlog said:

Question: How many people use planar magnetic headphones here?

 

I have 3: HE6, HEK v2 and LCD3.

[diecaster]

What do think these extra 8 bits are buying you? Probably not what you think:

 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

[tmtomh]

9 minutes ago, diecaster said:

What do think these extra 8 bits are buying you? Probably not what you think:

 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

 

Great article - not only for the information it provides, but also for the clarity with which it is provided - and given how the audiophile world works, also great because it's coming from a DAC manufacturer, which will give it more credibility among some folks who (wrongly) would not be as inclined to take the word of a non-audio-specialist electrical engineer.

[numlog]

2 hours ago, diecaster said:

What do think these extra 8 bits are buying you? Probably not what you think:

 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

yeah, nice breakdown of bits. This is the exact article that convinced me 24 bit was unnecessary a few years back!

 

I think 16 is too little rather than full 24 bit being necessary, ~20 bit would probably suffice.

 

Something interesting is that most articles focus on SNR and the extreme dB levels, the differences I hear are audible at moderate volume (though higher volumes really bring out the benefits)

 

It's seem likely that higher bit depth could allow a DAC to perform better,  but does it effect all DACs?
both DACs tested (the 24bit ODAC rev. b and 32 bit UDA38Pro) have similar audible benefits with 24 bit over 16 bit versions of same files. Also, setting the DAC output to 16 bit for the 16 bit files sounded a lot worse.

 

For conversion foobar2000 was used,no dithering, 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit WAV.

 

I could upload a track in its 24 bit and 16 bit version if anyone is interested in demoing.

 

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, numlog said:

For conversion foobar2000 was used,no dithering, 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit WAV.

You must use dither. Otherwise there may well be audible degradation.

[numlog]

31 minutes ago, mansr said:

You must use dither. Otherwise there may well be audible degradation.

Sorry I was mistaken, dithering is set to 'always'.

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, mansr said:

Better than what?

You took the words right out of my mouth - er, keyboard, mansr!

[Andyman]

27 minutes ago, numlog said:

Sorry I was mistaken, dithering is set to 'always'.

 

Ah, you mis-spoke (wrote). Are you American?

[numlog]

1 minute ago, Andyman said:

 

Ah, you mis-spoke (wrote). Are you American?

nope, why do you ask?

[danadam]

1 hour ago, numlog said:

I could upload a track in its 24 bit and 16 bit version if anyone is interested in demoing.

Will it include foobar's abx log showing that you can hear those "audible benefits"? ?

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, Rocky Bennett said:

I have not read any of the comments left after this post but I would suggest that the problem is psychological and not factual. A really good system should render a well mastered 16 bit file to sound pristine, and the resulting playback should sound nearly identical to a 24 bit file of the same material with the same mastering.

This would only be true, all other things being equal. In the world commercial music releases, this is seldom the case. We buy high-res formats expecting to get the best technology can provide. In reality, the results are all over the place. Phonograph records that sound spectacular and SACDs that sound lousy. Decades old CDs that sound merely OK and High-res downloads of the same performances that we spent a lot of money on that sound exactly like the decades old CD! It's a craps shoot!

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, numlog said:

Question: How many people use planar magnetic headphones here?

I do. I have 4-pairs of planar magnetic headphones, all from HiFiMan.

HE-560

HE-1000

Edition X

HE-400s

Just last night, I listened to the BBC3 Binaural feed of the First night at the Proms 2018 with my HE-1000s. They played Vaughan-Williams "Toward the Unknown Region" and Holst' "The Planets" and Meredith's "Five Telegrams". The binaural sound was recorded live on July 14 at the Royal Albert Hall in London, and the binaural sound is uncanny! If you have a good pair of 'phones, I strongly suggest that you give it a listen. Here's the URL:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b94d97

[diecaster]

2 hours ago, numlog said:

yeah, nice breakdown of bits. This is the exact article that convinced me 24 bit was unnecessary a few years back!

 

I think 16 is too little rather than full 24 bit being necessary, ~20 bit would probably suffice.

 

Something interesting is that most articles focus on SNR and the extreme dB levels, the differences I hear are audible at moderate volume (though higher volumes really bring out the benefits)

 

It's seem likely that higher bit depth could allow a DAC to perform better,  but does it effect all DACs?
both DACs tested (the 24bit ODAC rev. b and 32 bit UDA38Pro) have similar audible benefits with 24 bit over 16 bit versions of same files. Also, setting the DAC output to 16 bit for the 16 bit files sounded a lot worse.

 

For conversion foobar2000 was used,no dithering, 24 bit FLAC to 16 bit WAV.

 

I could upload a track in its 24 bit and 16 bit version if anyone is interested in demoing.

 

 

You are rationalizing what you think to be true. There is FAR more to be gained with higher bit rates than higher bit depths yet even the difference there is subtle between identical masterings. 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Andyman said:

 

Ah, you mis-spoke (wrote). Are you American?

 

1 hour ago, numlog said:

nope, why do you ask?

 

I believe it is a reference to Trump's performance at and after the Helsinki conference.

[Blake]

9 hours ago, numlog said:

You are right the title is misleading, its mostly the obsession with perfection that makes it 'almost unlistenable'. It's sickening to have spent so much time improving something then to have no control over the core part.

 

Now, obsessiveness aside, 24 bit is important enough to me that I would pay a lot more over a 16 bit version and listen to music that I dont particularly like.

I would pay hundreds for (good) 24 bit versions of my favourite albums if that was possible.

 

I'm using Hifiman HE560 headphones with planar magnetic drivers, this technology is known for its extreme speed and low distortion, linear bass.

I went from dynamic driver speakers to dynamic driver headphones to planar headphones and I would never go back, without planar headphones 24 bit wouldnt be half as important to me. The HD650 are still an amazing headphone though.

 

Would it be wrong to assume the majority here are using speakers?

Even without the problem of room acoustics and such, Any dynamic drivers will struggle in the area where 24 bit excels and that's bass.

 

1. Actually, it seems to me that your title for this thread was accurate with respect to your views and not misleading.  For example, per your post above, you will listen to 24 bit music that you don't really like, rather listening to 16 bit music you do like.  That is odd to me. What is the point of even having better gear? I'd rather sell my stuff and use the money for a different hobby.

 

2. Your over-generalized comments about the unquestioned superiority of planar magnetic technology are inaccurate.  Each technology has compromises.   You can subjectively prefer one technology over the other, but your blanket statements about planar superiority are silly, particularly where you seem to imply that a dynamic headphone is not as capable in resolving the differences in 24 bit vs. 16 bit (i.e. dynamic cans are less resolving).

 

3. I think you will get more enjoyment from this hobby if you let go of your obsessions about music format and headphone technologies and just listen to the music you like.  I never check the DR ratings of my music.  Why?  Because if I know the number (particularly if it is low), I will just obsess about the DR aspect rather than enjoying the music.  I think you are doing something similar- you see 16 bit vs. 24 bit and you are then letting that influence your subjective impressions of the sound quality and your enjoyment of the music.

 

4. I agree with you on your views of electronic music (that is my preferred genre) and view that small differences can be very important.   

[numlog]

1 hour ago, Blake said:

 

1. Actually, it seems to me that your title for this thread was accurate with respect to your views and not misleading.  For example, per your post above, you will listen to 24 bit music that you don't really like, rather listening to 16 bit music you do like.  That is odd to me. What is the point of even having better gear? I'd rather sell my stuff and use the money for a different hobby.

 

2. Your over-generalized comments about the unquestioned superiority of planar magnetic technology are inaccurate.  Each technology has compromises.   You can subjectively prefer one technology over the other, but your blanket statements about planar superiority are silly, particularly where you seem to imply that a dynamic headphone is not as capable in resolving the differences in 24 bit vs. 16 bit (i.e. dynamic cans are less resolving).

 

3. I think you will get more enjoyment from this hobby if you let go of your obsessions about music format and headphone technologies and just listen to the music you like.  I never check the DR ratings of my music.  Why?  Because if I know the number (particularly if it is low), I will just obsess about the DR aspect rather than enjoying the music.  I think you are doing something similar- you see 16 bit vs. 24 bit and you are then letting that influence your subjective impressions of the sound quality and your enjoyment of the music.

 

4. I agree with you on your views of electronic music (that is my preferred genre) and view that small differences can be very important.   

accidental post, editing now

[Sonicularity]

2 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

You are rationalizing what you think to be true. There is FAR more to be gained with higher bit rates than higher bit depths yet even the difference there is subtle between identical masterings. 

 

The sampling rate is important to noise shaping with dither.  This is how 1-bit DSD can work by shaping the noise into a frequency far outside our hearing range.  Though, it requires a significantly high sampling rate to do this effectively.

[ChrisG]

On 7/13/2018 at 6:43 PM, AudioDoctor said:

I misspoke, it is both a tape and CD player.  Also, an integrated amplifier.

After I bought one of these, I had a hard time finding sponge-worthy music 

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, ChrisG said:

After I bought one of these, I had a hard time finding sponge-worthy music 

 

Here you go.

 

 

[buonassi]

On 7/15/2018 at 1:55 AM, sandyk said:

 

 Have you , or others compared stuff like " Blondie-Parallel Lines " in both 16/44.1 and the 24/192 versions ?

There is also markedly better channel separation with the 24/192 version.

It's simply no contest with my PC audio. I was comparing the .flac 24/192 after conversion to .wav earlier today.

No I haven't.  It's quite possible that genre benefits from the hires.  Even other music (prog rock, a genre I listen to a bunch) I can sometimes tell a difference with hires, it's just not an appreciable one.  For me at least.  If more music I listened to was available in hires, I'd likely buy it, just cause.  

 

I do want to add that another reason the delta is small between red book and hires on my system may be due to the NOS DAC I use.  That's worth pondering.

[gmgraves]

20 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't listen too much to headphones.  I've owned some Stax Lamdas, Koss ESP9's and some more normal dynamic headphones like DT880s.  

 

I listen to Soundlab ESL speakers.  Don't know how that compares to planar magnetic headphones not having listened to any.  I would think the electrostat phones could work as well as planar magnetics.  They have some advantages in speakers over planar magnetic speakers like Magnepans.  

Soundlabs are extremely good, like marvelous. I f I were still working and not retired, they would be my first choice in speakers. They sound like music, period! As it is, I have to be content with my Martin-Logans, but I'm not complaining. While not as close to perfection as the Soundlabs, they are good enough that I find them very clean and color-free. I agree with you that as good as Magnepans can be, a good ESL speaker system is better  (although I haven't heard the MG-30.7s which are in the same price range as some of the Soundlabs models. So I don't know how they would compare. 

Planar Magnetic Headphones are actually better from a number of standpoints over ESLs like Stax's. I had the chance to compare the HifiMan HE-1000s with a pair of Stax SR-007s MKII powered by an SRM-T8000 "energizer/driver". I found the HiFiMan 'phones to be less veiled, with far better bass than the Stax provided. They are also far more practical. I can drive my HiFiMan Edition-X phones and HE 400S phones with an iPod-like device and my HE-1000s and HE-560's with any decent headphone amplifier. I own a Schiit Asgard2 headphone amp an find it excellent it's clean, pure class A and has a lot of drive. I also have, at the moment, a Benchmark DAC3 DX, and it's headphone amp is likewise brilliant. Another advantage of Planar Magnetic 'phones is that they require no special cable and any standard headphone extension cable will work fine. I can move freely about the room while listening on phones, something that's awkward, at best, with ESL phones even with a dedicated ESL extension cord (which ain't cheap!).

[adamdea]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

You must use dither. Otherwise there may well be audible degradation.

and triangular dither not rectangular. Noise shaped dither might be better but on the other hand it might not, so perhaps best avoided for a 24/44  comparison with 16/44.

[mansr]

Just now, adamdea said:

and triangular dither not rectangular. Noise shaped dither might be better but on the other hand it might not, so perhaps best avoided for a 24/44  comparison with 16/44.

Shaped dither at 44.1 kHz is tricky as it easily becomes audible. At 88.2 kHz and up, there's a wider range of completely inaudible frequencies where noise can be dumped without issue.

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Shaped dither at 44.1 kHz is tricky as it easily becomes audible. At 88.2 kHz and up, there's a wider range of completely inaudible frequencies where noise can be dumped without issue.

It's a risky business trying to dump quantisation noise in such a small, potentially audible band. Especially when the only point in it is to ensure that you couldn't hear the quantisation noise  in a silent passage with the volume on max.