16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[AudioDoctor]

3 minutes ago, cjf said:

In almost every case, my older original Redbook copies of a given album sound better than the same album in HiRes. I suspect most of this is due to original mastering skill or lack there of in reference to the newer HiRes copy.

 

The tone deaf millennial artists will ensure the death of anything that resembles real HiFi in the future. Do they even use real instruments anymore?

 

I throw up in my own mouth everytime I'm forced to hear something new on the radio these days.

 

So you don't think there is any good music being made these days?

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Haha, well that happens in a pineapple under the sea...

I'd like to be under the sea

In an octopus' garden in the shade.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, cjf said:

The tone deaf millennial artists will ensure the death of anything that resembles real HiFi in the future. Do they even use real instruments anymore?

I know a few local musicians. They all play very real instruments. Quite well, too.

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, Andyman said:

Hmm. So you’ve improved your system so much, the vast majority of recorded music sounds worse. Red book is quite capable of stunning sq. Don’t have a clue what you have or have changed but I respectfully suggest you haven’t improved in all areas. 

 

 Agreed.

It sounds more like symptoms of low level wideband noise, perhaps due to PSU inadequacies.

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

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

 

With a 1,000W PMPO output too ?

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, numlog said:

So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas, its not the holy grail of sound but any further improvements will be very subtle refinements.

DXD and DSD128 is pretty spectacular but redbook makes up 99% of the music. As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise.

 

Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low.

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

It's not the 16-bit recordings, exclusively,  it's your most likely either your CD deck or your DAC. Whatever the problem is, it's likely with your equipment not the CD. While some CDs do sound bad (often because of the way they were produced, not the format). But if they all sound bad, then either you buy only lousy sounding CDs (remember most pop music produced over the last 20 years are heavily volume compressed to make them sound loud), or your digital playback chain has a problem. The former is doubtful, so I vote for the latter. 

[mansr]

Just now, sandyk said:

With a 1,000W PMPO output too ?

PMPO, Purposefully Misleading Power Overstatement.

[cjf]

57 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

So you don't think there is any good music being made these days?

I'm sure there is something half respectable being created somewhere out there. I've just not witnessed or heard it myself in a very long time. If it does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to get any airplay over the FM Band.

 

Thank God for XM!

[charlesphoto]

1 hour ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

Please note the very advanced clock.  And the fact that it's a TOP MOUNT CD player!!  How audiophile is that?

 

My six year old daughter has this exact model. As far as I can tell not MQA approved so forget about Stereophile reviewing it...

[cjf]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I know a few local musicians. They all play very real instruments. Quite well, too.

Ahh, so your the one! Do they write and play there own music too? If so, good for them. Maybe they will someday squeeze out Taylor Swift for a few mins of radio play and start a new trend. I hope so.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, cjf said:

I'm sure there is something half respectable being created somewhere out there. I've just not witnessed or heard it myself in a very long time. If it does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to get any airplay over the FM Band.

 

Thank God for XM!

 

Turn off the FM radio, or find new stations to listen to.  I can't remember the last time I listened to anything other than Public Radio of some sort over FM.

 

The Current

 

there, modern music from Minnesota Public radio, stream it for a while.  No Taylor Swift, just good music. If you use Jriver, you can stream them from inside the player.

[AudioDoctor]

Another good source for finding new artists is right here on CA, the Song of the Day and Album of the Day threads have introduced me to a lot of new artists.

[davide256]

I'm fine with 16 bit if the recording engineer did a good job. I'm  much more concerned about good music spoiled by bad mastering.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, cjf said:

I'm sure there is something half respectable being created somewhere out there. I've just not witnessed or heard it myself in a very long time. If it does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to get any airplay over the FM Band.

 

Thank God for XM!

 

We all think that at times ... then, out of the blue, I discovered this, local, mob,

 

 

 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's highly instructive to take some hi res tracks from a recognised source - I use those from 2L - and subtract out the extra stuff after creating a CD quality version; and then look at, and listen to the hi res elements after amplifying by enormous amounts - ummm, absolutely nothing of special value. Sometimes, just transients from accidental, non-musical bumps and scrapes in the recording space.

 

If it sounds obviously different, then it's different masterings, or a playback chain that is poor at handling 16 bit format.

Historically, I found some hi-res sounded better - a little more extension on the high end, a little less digital sounding. Mostly noticeable with acoustic string or percussion instruments. I did seem to find some recordings/examples where it was independent of mastering. 

Now, my system has improved and I think there is even less difference. I won't say there is none, but it isn't a dramatic difference. So some of that difference was due to my equipment, and not the medium. 

I still tend to buy recordings in high res if they were made that way, because I figure they might sound a tiny bit better in the original format; I also prefer DSD as a medium for tape converted to digital-I think it sounds more like the original.

But it's no longer a big deal to me. I'm pretty happy with well recorded Redbook, if I can find it. 

[numlog]

 

9 hours ago, firedog said:

If you listen to Redbook, improving your system should mean the sound of Redbook also improves. There are setups where the sound of Redbook can be so good that you can’t tell much difference to hi-res.

 

it did significantly, but the difference between hi res became a lot greater too

[firedog]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

The bass is a bit squishy.

That's because it has sponge in the bass ports of the speakers.

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

But it's no longer a big deal to me. I'm pretty happy with well recorded Redbook, if I can find it. 

 

I've found that there isn't an issue - there is so much "fat" in the amount of musical data captured that even a "not so well recorded" Redbook delivers a fully satisfying listening experience, if the rig is tuned up well enough.

 

An interesting journey for the audio friend down the road - he was firmly on the "gotta get hold of the remasters, because the originals are pretty awful!" bandwagon originally - but as he's steadily got a better handle on what's needed to be done to optimise his setup he's swung around: now, we can both hear that the originals are fuller, richer, a more powerful musical experience - the remasters have stripped the content somewhat bare; they have become, "audiophile fodder" ...

[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 ...

[gmgraves]

42 minutes ago, firedog said:

I still tend to buy recordings in high res if they were made that way, because I figure they might sound a tiny bit better in the original format; I also prefer DSD as a medium for tape converted to digital-I think it sounds more like the original.

 

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I've heard 16-bit/44.1 KHz recordings that sound magnificent, and I've heard DSD and high-res recordings that sound atrocious. It's not any one part of the process that guarantees good sound, it's the whole megillah!

[numlog]

5 hours ago, 4est said:

Have you ever tried converting 16/44.1PCM>DSD using high quality software? If DSD sounds good to you, you might want to try it. I use HQPlayer, but there are others. As others have noted, it sounds like you might have some other issue if you notice it that much.

Yes, I use HQ player and oversample 44.1kHz to 352.8 PCM. I gave DSD conversion plenty of chances with different filters modulators etc. but I feel there is a loss of clarity, it may be slightly denser and captures the body of voices and instruments better but at the cost of adding slight roughness or grain which is unpleasant.

 

HQ player is a requirement for hi res I think. In foobar2000 hi res and redbook do sound slightly different but not necessarily better. Sox resampler in foobar is also useless- bass disappears, imaging distorts and treble becomes glassy

14 hours ago, Cary said:

Noise floor of 50db in your room + a 90db dynamic range for 16 bit = 140db peak levels to exploit the full dynamic range.  I would love to know what you are using for equipment that allows you to hit those levels, much less higher to hear the extra dynamics of a higher bit depth.  You also must have amazing ears to still be able to hear anything after hitting those levels.  

Thats the theory and believing that gave me peace of mind for years, believing in hi res meant rebuying a lot of albums and being forced to listen to inferior versions of some of my favourites. I cant believe it anymore even If I wanted to

 

10 hours ago, mansr said:

I have both CD quality and hi-res music in my library. Now and again I'll be listening to something with unusual clarity and think to myself, maybe there's something to hi-res after all. Then I look at the info display and notice it's plain old CD quality, just very well recorded.

The complete opposite can happen aswell,  Since Aphex Twin's Syro release I was perplexed by the sound, the album was mastered way too loud but it never sounded congested or stiff in the way that overcompressed albums usually sound. Started using Hqplayer recently and it shows the bit depth, Syro was 24 bit all along.

 

Music that is generated completely or partially digitally (i.e hip hop and electronic)is the perfect candidate for 24 bit, ambient noise and microphone sensitivity are only an issue for the vocals. This kind of music... or really any music released in recent years is often shamefully overcompressed in mastering, even still the benefits of 24 bit remain.

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I've heard 16-bit/44.1 KHz recordings that sound magnificent, and I've heard DSD and high-res recordings that sound atrocious. It's not any one part of the process that guarantees good sound, it's the whole megillah!

And your point is? I didn't say anything about one medium being intrinsically superior to another. 

But I've compared such transfers of tape to both DSD and PCM - I like the DSD better and think it sounds more like the tape.  It's my perception. Why do you feel a need to chime in? I don't think you have the ability to tell me what I'm hearing. 

[audiventory]

14 hours ago, Cary said:

Noise floor of 50db in your room + a 90db dynamic range for 16 bit = 140db peak levels to exploit the full dynamic range.

 

Dynamic range is not definded as difference between noise floor and peak level.

It definded difference between levels with allowable distortions.

Read details here https://samplerateconverter.com/educational/dynamic-range

 

I think, when acoustical noise level (air pressure) of record on 50 dB, it's too much, even worse than analog sources. I suppose, 50 dB of the acoustical pressure is like to cooling fans noise at hard working notebook.

 

Probably, noise floor may be from 0...10 dB in the listening room.

[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 ...

[GUTB]

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

 

Why it sounds better is up for debate. There's good evidence that it's due to our apparent ability to process high frequency information even though we aren't conscious of them as sounds. There is also evidence that human's time domain acuity is much higher than our frequency perception would suggest. Setting aside the theory, it's fact that anyone with even a mediocre ability to discern audio quality should be able to appreciate it.