Why 24/192 music makes no sense

[bigburner]

This is a very interesting article that will raise a few hackles in the audiophile community.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_su

Nigel.

[stuofsci02]

Good Article..

I agree in with this in theory..

So why do I still buy SACD, DVD-A and high bitrate FLAC.. Only because when the mastering engineer is using those formats it is more or less assumed that they want to produce the highest quality playback possible. Whereas with CDs you never know..

[impala454]

Very interesting article. And he does mention stuofsci's point that SACDs/etc tend to be better simply because the master is better.

[PewterTA]

My question on it is... when I have a recorded track at 24/96 or 192... why can't I get it to sound the same when all I do is convert it to 16/44.1 with Adobe Audition. Is this showing the weakness in Adobe algorithm or weakness in my DAC...or what? There's a noticeable difference to me at least.

Great read though and I believe it is all pretty much dead on. I also think though a lot of it is the "in a perfect world" type of a scenario... where you're ADC, DAC, Pre, and Amp and Speakers are all beyond basically what most of us use.

Which there in lies the point of possibly "reasoning" the higher rates... because when you got more to loose... it not as noticeable.

[madmac]

I disagree with the article on many fronts...... specifically the bit ratio part. I'm not a huge authority on sampling, but bit rate is a completely different thing. 24 bit sound offers millions of more bits of audio information than 16 bit. I don't know about you all, but the difference between a BD sound display at 24 bit is CLEARLY better than the dvd version of the same thing!!.

I do agree however that some CD's nowadays really sound nice because effort was put into the recording and mastering process. HOWEVER....if that same great CD was produced in 24 bit sound, can anybody here on the forum tell me that you would NOT hear the difference ??. NOT gonna' happen!!. 24 bit recordings are better....PERIOD!!!.

[mjb]

Someones in denial.... and I some how doubt its Monty.

[Hdale85]

Well the article didn't really dis-credit 24bit vs 16bit, it was more based around the 192khz. Although I don't quite get where it's coming from? You aren't hearing the signal at 192khz are you? That's just the signal between the digital components before it goes analog?

[stuofsci02]

I disagree with the article on many fronts...... specifically the bit ratio part. I'm not a huge authority on sampling, but bit rate is a completely different thing. 24 bit sound offers millions of more bits of audio information than 16 bit. I don't know about you all, but the difference between a BD sound display at 24 bit is CLEARLY better than the dvd version of the same thing!!.

I do agree however that some CD's nowadays really sound nice because effort was put into the recording and mastering process. HOWEVER....if that same great CD was produced in 24 bit sound, can anybody here on the forum tell me that you would NOT hear the difference ??. NOT gonna' happen!!. 24 bit recordings are better....PERIOD!!!.

The article clearly explained bit rate. All bit rate does is let you increase the number of volume points that a particular sample can have. With 16 bit you have 65536 different amplitude possibilities. As the articale indicated that gives you up 120 db of range, or the equivilent volume difference between a the sound of a mosquito and a jack hammer both 3 ft from your ear.

As long as the sound engineer is careful to set the center of where they record they will not clip normal music, or have sound disappear into the noise floor. But if a sound engineer does not want to mess with that they can record in 24bit so that they will never clip. Then they can throw away the bits that are above clipping and below the noise floor to return the recording back to 16 bit.

[madmac]

Huh???.......HTGuide forum people sound off here!!. Even HDCD sounds better than standard CD's!!!. Every time I hear a 24 bit recording.....I can hear the difference!!!. Common'!!!!????

[bbggg]

People often write stuff without understanding what it means. Monty, for example, states that the sound of an approaching mosquito is at the threshold of hearing, and that this is still covered by Red Book. I wonder if he has listened to a recording of a mosquito encoded at the LSB (i.e. with 1-bit accuracy, which is the best Red Book can do) and what he thought of it.

When people say that 96 dB of dynamic range is sufficient, they are unconsciously presuming that this dynamic range is present at all times. It's not. A very quiet music passage, or a reverberant decay tail, can be very quiet and is encoded and decoded using very few of the available bits. In this context, any increase in accuracy is to be welcomed.

[stuofsci02]

Huh???.......HTGuide forum people sound off here!!. Even HDCD sounds better than standard CD's!!!. Every time I hear a 24 bit recording.....I can hear the difference!!!. Common'!!!!????

HTGuide forum people?

Please look back at my first post...

How are you certain that the 24bit version of whatever you are playing is the same master?

[impala454]

Would a hybrid SACD disc be of some use in the debate? Aren't the two channel modes of those discs just a downmixed version of the SA track? Just an idea.

[stuofsci02]

Would a hybrid SACD disc be of some use in the debate? Aren't the two channel modes of those discs just a downmixed version of the SA track? Just an idea.

Yes, that might work, but how do you play it on the same player to eliminate equipment as the difference. I don't know that I can select to play the redbook layer on my Oppo. It automatically recognizes the SACD layer.

[impala454]

Hmm... I have the Oppo as well and I know I can press the button to go between 5.1 and 2 channel, but I assume that's still the SA layer.

[madmac]

Don't get me wrong here and the article might indeed be true in theory. I have some ordinary CD's that sound better than some of my HI-REZ stuff. It's just that I find the well recorded 24 bit stuff has 'texture' to the sound of it. Almost like more analog, but Hi-rez analog wwhich is beautiful to listen to. Also and like a poster said above, they have better depth and decay in sound field.

Besides, Neil Young likes high rez and if it's good enough for Neil......It's good enough for me !!! Hehehe!!

[stuofsci02]

I like high rez too... Because in general it does sound better.. But I am not sure that it is because of the higher sampling/bitrate. So many sound engineers compress the dynamic range for shitty iPods and radio that it sounds terrible on a good system. They don't compress because it needs to be compressed to work on redbook CD, but instead so some yuppie can hear all the sounds on their $2 ipod headphones while working out on the treadmill. It is the world we live in.

At least with the "hi-rez" formats you know they will not compress the dynamic range..

BTW.. I just got Dire Straits - Brother In Arms and Norah Jones - Come Away With Me on SACD.. Still need to do a proper audition, but in the few minutes I have spent, they seem very good.

[madmac]

I like high rez too... Because in general it does sound better.. But I am not sure that it is because of the higher sampling/bitrate. So many sound engineers compress the dynamic range for shitty iPods and radio that it sounds terrible on a good system. They don't compress because it needs to be compressed to work on redbook CD, but instead so some yuppie can hear all the sounds on their $2 ipod headphones while working out on the treadmill. It is the world we live in.

At least with the "hi-rez" formats you know they will not compress the dynamic range..

BTW.. I just got Dire Straits - Brother In Arms and Norah Jones - Come Away With Me on SACD.. Still need to do a proper audition, but in the few minutes I have spent, they seem very good.

Brother's in arms sounded good back in the 80's so It's gotta' sound awesome remastered in 24 bit. :E I believe most music in the studio is done in 24 bit now and is downgraded to redbook once mastered. Remember, live music is real....no bits....no compression. The closer you can get to that real sound in the digital world the better and I believe that 24 bit sound, with it's millions of more pieces of information and the better dynamic range you mentioned above gets us a little closer to that reality of like being there!!! :T

[stuofsci02]

Yep.. It sounds good, but since it is SACD it is technically 1 bit DSD

[Chris D]

Yeah, the Dire Straits-BIA 20th Anniversary album is still my #1 demo disc, especially "Money for Nothing".

Without reading the subject article here in detail yet, I'll just say that I have the BIA album on both SACD and dual-disc DVD-A. And I can certainly tell when I am accidentally playing the redbook layer on my player instead of the hi-rez layer. (my player can play both)

[wkhanna]

The Emperor's Old Clothes: In Theory Is Where I Do My Best Practice

A response from an interesting viewpoint.........

Link to article at www.audiostream

[madmac]

A response from an interesting viewpoint.........

Link to article at www.audiostream

This part is particularly laughable:

"and we all know you can't trust a musician when it comes to talking about the sound of music"

Hehehehe :rofl: He's kidding right?. I'm a singer/musician and that's ALL I care about is the sound of my music!!! That's hilarious!!! :rofl:

[stuofsci02]

This part is particularly laughable:

"and we all know you can't trust a musician when it comes to talking about the sound of music"

Hehehehe :rofl: He's kidding right?. I'm a singer/musician and that's ALL I care about is the sound of my music!!! That's hilarious!!! :rofl:

I believe sarcasm was intended...

[bigburner]

we all know you can't trust a musician when it comes to talking about the sound of music

The Sound of Music is a wonderful musical and I won't hear a bad word said about it.

"The hills are alive..."

Nigel.

[PewterTA]

I think the problem is they didn't go up to 24/384Khz.... that's when you can start hearing a difference. LOL

[abqnmusa]

I hear if you get music in 32bit 1024 Khz the improvement is obvious ;>)

[Alaric]

My SA8260 will play either layer of a hybrid disc. I've done it with Dark Side Of The Moon many times looking for differences (excellent Redbook layer) The SACD layer sounds better , but it certainly isn't a dramatic difference , and it takes equipment/acoustic variables out of the equation , down to seating position using the remote. In some ways the "blacker" background of the SACD seems to make it less "lively". My $.02.

[JonMarsh]

well, you know how everybody has an opinion....

Just to toss a few out on the woodpile:

• Though the "holy grail" of SACD playback is no conversion to PCM, IMO this is over rated or mis-understood- and presumes we can get better DSD DACs in available retail gear than PCM DAC's- is that so?
• I have a lot of high resolution stuff- some native PCM, plus a large collection of SACD's, and a large music server library of music "extracted" from my SACD's to 24/176.4. Most of my high res native PCM is 24/192
• My opinion is that mastering makes a big difference, and usually when the production people are delivering in a format like SACD or high res PCM, they take extra care and trouble to get it right
• I have several high end SACD players- all above $5K. IMO, SACD playback on these players is not as transparent, natural, and detailed as the extracted files converted to 24/176.4 played back on my favorite DACs (which are in a similar price range, except the NAD M51, which punches out of it's weight class; to get better, with SACD, I think you have to go to dCS or Meitner
• I think SACD DSD playback conversion can in principle be just as good as PCM, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that for a give price point of player, SACD files will usually sound better than CD playback on the same player- so IMO, you do get something out of that format.
• The best sounding recordings I have are all 24/192 or 24/176.4 at this point. BUT, with an excellent DAC, CD can sound pretty damn good. It takes a very good digital system and D/A and reconstruction filters to make CD sound close to high res; it also takes a very good DAC to get the most possible out of high res. Whether that's a point of diminishing returns is very much an individual call depending on your overall system and passion for this crazy hobby.
• If it were up to me, the world would be recording in 24/176.4- pretty much all the benefits of 24/192, and simple up conversion from 44.1. In my main system, I run a LIO-8 always at 24/176.4, and Fidelia provides up sampling to that resolution using their licensed Izotope code and filters.

[Briz vegas]

I have a SACD of theCowboyJunkies and it was recorded on a 16 bit Sony machine in their garage. I understand that Brothers in Arms was one of the early digital recordings- 16 bit.

I compared a 128kb version of New Pornographers with my CD and found that the thinner MP3 sounded better because it was so compressed. The MP3 helped thin out the sound and gave the impression of more detail.

I have 2 rips or Beck's Sea Change and Talking Heads Stop Making Sense. One version is a straight rip ( to a non-HDCD DAC) 16bit and one is a 24 bit copy using DBpower amp. The 24 bit digs up the 20 bit HDCD equivalent sound. The 24 bit is a more mature natural and relaxed sound.

192 kHz is not everything but I have access to it and where available I will use it. When you have spent 14k on amplification why would you not seek out that last ounce of sound quality in your music, the same goes for anyone that has invested a good chunk of their disposable income ( or credit) on a quality system. At the end of the day the differences are not great, but at the pointy end it's those last 2 percent that sucker you in and you find yourself seeking out quality as well as your old and new favorites.

[madmac]

I have a SACD of theCowboyJunkies and it was recorded on a 16 bit Sony machine in their garage. I understand that Brothers in Arms was one of the early digital recordings- 16 bit.

I compared a 128kb version of New Pornographers with my CD and found that the thinner MP3 sounded better because it was so compressed. The MP3 helped thin out the sound and gave the impression of more detail.

I have 2 rips or Beck's Sea Change and Talking Heads Stop Making Sense. One version is a straight rip ( to a non-HDCD DAC) 16bit and one is a 24 bit copy using DBpower amp. The 24 bit digs up the 20 bit HDCD equivalent sound. The 24 bit is a more mature natural and relaxed sound.

192 kHz is not everything but I have access to it and where available I will use it. When you have spent 14k on amplification why would you not seek out that last ounce of sound quality in your music, the same goes for anyone that has invested a good chunk of their disposable income ( or credit) on a quality system. At the end of the day the differences are not great, but at the pointy end it's those last 2 percent that sucker you in and you find yourself seeking out quality as well as your old and new favorites.

Agreed!!. I can easily hear the difference with 24 bit on my system. :W

[PewterTA]

I wonder if this is the same sort of theories as with photography... remember just a few years back 4MP was AWESOME. How could you want any more detail in your pictures and why would you need anymore. Now 12 - 16MP is more standard and giving one BETTER detail...however, most of us post those pictures up on the Internet and compress them down. They still look fantastic...but not many of us ever look at the pictures in their full detail.

I think it's similar with the audio (not exact mind you).... but it's the same effect...most people... except for the wonderful people on this forum!!! ...don't tend to have the systems to show off all that extra detail. Not debating whether or not that detail is really there or not mind you. But I think this covers it.

DACs are an audiophile's greatest friend and worst enemy I think.

[mjb]

Apples retina display technology is a good example of this phenomenon. Technically it's way over the top, arguably I don't even have enough rods and cones in my eye ball to see it, etc, etc.... but when you experience the display first hand, it looks absolutely fantastic. Yes, we do see, and appreciate, a difference.

Audio is the same. OK, so the extra bit depth and higher resolution is mathematically superfluous, and perhaps my brain is too slow to decode it all, whatever - but I CAN hear a difference, however small, and it makes me happy to listen to it. Again, I appreciate the difference!

The pursuit of perfection, is what its all about. Sometimes, its a long path...