Right way to compare 16/44 and 24/96?

[diogenis]

Jeff,

 

Let me give you a new perspective here instead of just chasing and trying to reinvent the wheel, which is not that difficult task (goto max, or XLD, get a 24/48 or 24/96 file and kill its "information" or amplitude instead of resolution. Down grade it to 16bits. Then make both aiff or apple lossless and import them in itunes. Adjust midi audio for 24/96 play and do your A-B)

 

So, how about checking jitter with your system?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm

Unless I am wrong, it seems that you are letting jitter creep in your system

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

...what was it about this thread that led you to the concern over jitter?

 

I'll certainly agree reducing jitter is an important component part of the audiophile toolkit; but I fail to understand how you got there on this particular thread.

 

thanks,

jp

 

[diogenis]

Well, like you, I was trying to figure out too doing A-B tests, in the end bored of those dry tests, I decided to fix the only broken link that was the connection of my computer with my dac. So I bought the Bridge and stopped doing tests. I am really happy with the sound now, is more than enough for me for now and I stopped with those tests.

 

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

I don't think my reason for doing the tests was the same though.

 

I haven't been feeling like I'm disappointed with the sound I'm getting and looking for some way to make it better. More just a matter of wanting to know if the Hi-Res tracks were worth the searching and the money for me.

 

thanks,

jp

 

[diogenis]

Sure,

but there are still many limits currently. Unless Steve Jobs decides to move in and clear the landscape once and for all, your iphone/ipod (if you have) won't accept 24/96 sound but it will accept upto 24/48. Your imac will happily play upto 24/96 so, you have to decide if paying those premiums about sound stored in 192 for some kind of questionable usage in the future is worth paid for. Personally I am fine with music at 24/48 for now and for the future.

 

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

This has actually clinched it for me, but probably not in a way that anybody expected.

 

Please understand I mean no disrespect to the authors or providers of these soundkeeper recordings tracks -- or to those of you who like it. To me they are "typical" or perhaps even "stereotypical" of the compromise that Hi-Res currently forces on those who would choose that route.

 

I've seen others reference "audiophile recordings of train whistles", and "well recorded Norwegian folk music". For me, this set of tracks epitomizes that reality. If not recorded in Hi-Res format, I would never have gone near this kind of music. It is very deeply "not my cup of tea".

 

For me, it would seem that Hi-Res is not ready for its closeup. I'm reminded of the bumper sticker "A bad day fishing is better than a good day at work". I enjoy a poorly recorded Redbook CD of music I actually like much more than the highest quality recording of Norwegian folk music that has ever been made.

 

From here out I'll be looking for ways to maximize the quality of my system for playing Redbook, and hoping there continues to be new mainstream music I actually like available in that format, rather than only in iTunes Plus (and yes, I do hear a difference there).

 

Thanks everyone, for helping me finalize that realization.

 

[diogenis]

For me, I am fine with anything from 16/44 from a CD upto 24/96 because this is a much as I can handle with the equipment I have and current technology. Again to me, there are many factors to consider:

 

Quality of the recording (and this is very important, and completely separated from digital encoding/format),

Convenience,

Fidelity for sure,

Costs...

 

 

 

 

 

[The Offenbach Kid]

jp

 

Finding 24/96 recordings like the Amandine Beyer version of The Four Seasons.

 

Was it worth it?

 

You know it was.

 

By the way, if you haven't done so already I recommend you join the Bowers and Wilkins Society of Sound.

 

I don't know the annual cost in the US but here in Europe it's 60 Euros. For that you get their back catalogue and each month a classical recording by the LSO and one other which might be African, Blues, Jazz (ish) etc.

 

It's all 24bit Flac, well recorded, but not hi-res in terms of sample rate, but that doesn't matter because some of the music is really good, and 24 new downloads per year for only 60 Euros is immense value in my book. And you don't have to go searching for it, you get an e-mail each month when the new recordings are available for download.

 

Neil

 

[blueixus]

"A bad day fishing is better than a good day at work".

 

Jeff that is so completely spot on.

 

I feel my audiophile credentials slipping away. I simply can't/won't listen to stuff I don't like just because it is high res.I don't put great score by my musical taste but I can't change it either.

 

There was a time in the CD/Vinyl years when all music was available to the audiophile it was just the playback equipment that made the difference, that's changed and not for the better.

 

[diogenis]

Society of Sound, is indeed an amazing effort of Peter Gabriel to promote great music. It won't cost you your home and recordings are great quality too. Who cares about 24/96? I doubt most of us can tell the difference between 96 and 48, and even if we can, so what?

Just imagine the convenience of being able to download anything, and at great resolutions, better than CDs

 

[jhwalker]

Thank you so much for the pointer to Society of Sound! Several of the classical releases are ones I had been considering buying - value certainly more than the ~$50 US I wound up paying for a 12 month membership!

 

[dsnyder]

Hello,

 

Quote: I doubt most of us can tell the difference between 96 and 48, and even if we can, so what?

 

I like the idea of digital recordings at 88.2 kHz and higher sampling frequencies, but I'm not convinced that I can hear a significant difference between 24-bit 48, 96, and 192 kHz versions of the same recording. Even when I think that I can, I can't tell you which I prefer!

 

The big advantage to the B&W SoS albums (well, every two out of three anyway) is the 24-bit wordsize. On decent recordings, I consistently hear a difference between 16 and 24-bit versions and I have a preference for the 24-bit version every time.

 

I'm about half way through my first year with B&W SoS and have already collected 45 albums, 30 of which are 24-bit, 48kHz. I don't love every type of music, but there are enough there that I do really enjoy to make the $59.95 (USD) per year well worth it. Cheers.

 

-- David

 

 

[Jeff In San Diego]

Yes, there are a few diamonds among the coal. So far it seems to be very few.

 

Among those few is the great recommendation from the "what are you listening to now" thread:

http://www.theclassicalshop.net/Details.aspx?CatalogueNumber=AB%207755

The online samples are horrendous, but the purchased tracks are quite excellent and the bundle purchase has very many tracks and seems to be a very good value.

 

I'll check out B&W society this weekend. I'm not much of a "joiner", and the name amusingly reminds me of dead poets...but perhaps it will turn out to be another diamond?

 

thanks,

jp

 

[The Offenbach Kid]

Hi jp

 

Thanks for the link. I'll download that piece today.

 

Let me know how you get on with SoS.

 

You mentioned your tastes are somewhat eclectic on an earlier post; well, I think the SoS site should satisfy such tastes and I doubt there's better value to be had anywhere else in the world of music via the internet.

 

Neil.

 

[Akapod]

I've done several hi-rez vs. 16/44.1 blind listening tests with non-audiophilic friends, and can report (unscientifically) that they had difficulty describing differences between the two. They were, however, able (generally) to identify the hi-rez versions.

 

My preferred analogy for discussing hi-rez is that it's like getting a prescription for eyeglasses. The examiner repeatedly asks "better or worse," and many times it's just hard to tell (and as hard to tell why). But then comes the moment when the appropriate correction is made, and you know you're done -- everything is in focus.

 

Hi-rez won't give you higher highs or lower lows, and discussions of thing like soundstage and presence are maddeningly vague. But (to me and my friends), hi-rez sounds more ... focussed. (Another vague term). Rhythm sections sounds a little tighter, cymbal crashes seem more real, and there is more ... space between the music. All of which is to say that I feel that the music is better aligned, that some muffling or distorting element has been removed.

 

Over the past sixteen months, I've bought a DAC (Ayre QB-9, since upgraded to 192), begun using Pure Music and started purchased hi-rez music. Of those three, the hi-rez music has made the least improvement. Used together with the QB-9 and Pure Music, it's pretty wonderful.

 

 

And, of course, your mileage may vary. Trust your ears.

 

[jhwalker]

I'm not sure I'm yet hearing the difference, but am future-proofing my purchases by buying hi-res if the cost differential is not too much. I've only recently begun to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless (and that not consistently!).