CD (16/44) vs 24/xxx

[jim1961]

I am giving thought to trying to implement the ability to play 24/xxx files on my sound system. I am very cautious, maybe overly so, because I have many questions and not many answers I trust.
My questions are:

1) Frankly, how much better is it? Not theoretically but in real practice?
2) Is it a myth that many times a track said to be 24/xxx either isnt (just a 24 bit version of a 16 bit original), or it is, but the masterings can often times be inferior negating most of the sonic superiority you were after in the first place?
3) How critical is its implementation into your system? My fear is many will claim this and that works fine, only to find out later from someone like Jon that its cr@p (compliments to Jon here).

[jim1961]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/aries-vs-mini-confused-22664/

Here ^^^^ is a perfect illustration of what I want to avoid. They are comparing a Aries and a MINI.

[jim1961]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/602-serving-audio-today-three-real-world-examples-introduction/comments2.html#comments

Gone are the days when computer audio simply meant taking a general pc/Mac and loading it up with music, and sending it to your hi-fi. We began this journey with sound cards, then USB, then aysnchronous USB and firewire. Then folks began to realize that an optimized computer sounded better, then an isolated one, then a silent, isolated, optimized one. Then maybe a tweaked operating system, and so on. Today there are numerous ways to try and isolate the noise and activities of a computer from the pristine fragile music signal emanating from our libraries.

This seems to summarize all the different implementations. Unfortunately, the author never published his conclusions. I would appreciate any feedback on anyones preferred implementation and why.

[Kal Rubinson]

I am giving thought to trying to implement the ability to play 24/xxx files on my sound system. I am very cautious, maybe overly so, because I have many questions and not many answers I trust.
My questions are:

1) Frankly, how much better is it? Not theoretically but in real practice?

What can anyone tell you that you would or should trust? I hear consistent advantages with 24bit and 96+kHz files that are based on 24/96+ original source materials. Remastered 16/44.1 is a crap shoot and depends on who and how they did it. OTOH, really well recorded/mixed/mastered RedBook can be excellent. Whether you will hear a difference or care about it can only be determined through your own experience.

2) Is it a myth that many times a track said to be 24/xxx either isnt (just a 24 bit version of a 16 bit original), or it is, but the masterings can often times be inferior negating most of the sonic superiority you were after in the first place?

Not a myth.

3) How critical is its implementation into your system? My fear is many will claim this and that works fine, only to find out later from someone like Jon that its cr@p (compliments to Jon here).

I cannot say. I have heard really nice inexpensive stuff and crappy fancy stuff and, especially now with all the new system variables, things can be messed up. OTOH, I have two very different systems and a number of friends who have quite different systems and yet we have all reached very satisfying results.

[jim1961]

What can anyone tell you that you would or should trust?

The author of the telling will have a direct bearing on this

I hear consistent advantages with 24bit and 96+kHz files that are based on 24/96+ original source materials.

What I would be after are analog sources remastered to 24/96+k (i.e. a lot of pre-digital age sources)

Remastered 16/44.1 is a crap shoot and depends on who and how they did it.

Agreed.

OTOH, really well recorded/mixed/mastered RedBook can be excellent. Whether you will hear a difference or care about it can only be determined through your own experience.

By then of course, the investment has already been made and I for one cant afford do this over and over again so I better get the implementation right the first time.

I have heard really nice inexpensive stuff and crappy fancy stuff and, especially now with all the new system variables, things can be messed up. I have two very different systems and a number of friends who have quite different systems and yet we have all reached very satisfying results.

I am definitely trying to stay away from messed up :W

[Alaric]

Are you going to use your computer as a music server? If so, then skip the onboard audio and feed the SPIDF signal to a good, outboard DAC. At that point you can start to discern whether or not the recordings are "good" or not. My next purchase (admittedly limited budget) is some new Schiit. The Modi 2 Uber, http://schiit.com/products My $.02

[jim1961]

Are you going to use your computer as a music server?

Not sure.

If so, then skip the onboard audio and feed the SPIDF signal to a good, outboard DAC. At that point you can start to discern whether or not the recordings are "good" or not. My next purchase (admittedly limited budget) is some new Schiit. The Modi 2 Uber, http://schiit.com/products My $.02

I already have a stand alone DAC.

[Kal Rubinson]

By then of course, the investment has already been made and I for one cant afford do this over and over again so I better get the implementation right the first time.

I am definitely trying to stay away from messed up :W

That's fine. Start with what you have and start listening/comparing. PC/Mac, useful software and a DAC is all you need. to get going and, as I recall, you already have that.

[jim1961]

That's fine. Start with what you have and start listening/comparing. PC/Mac, useful software and a DAC is all you need. to get going and, as I recall, you already have that.

The USB inputs on my DAC only support 16/48. I currently have no coax out on my computer. So I am stuck at the moment.

[Kal Rubinson]

The USB inputs on my DAC only support 16/48. I currently have no coax out on my computer. So I am stuck at the moment.

Understood. Now's a good time to get familiar with your files. Consider getting a new DAC from a vendor with a trial and/or return policy and decide what works for you.

[jim1961]

Understood. Now's a good time to get familiar with your files. Consider getting a new DAC from a vendor with a trial and/or return policy and decide what works for you.

A soundcard with coax out would be a lot cheaper than a new DAC. The Asus ive been looking at isnt cheap at $200 though.

But like said before, I am not sure I want to use my PC as my music server and so dont want to invest until I know my final plan. This is why I am trying to learn about music servers.

[Kal Rubinson]

A soundcard with coax out would be a lot cheaper than a new DAC. The Asus ive been looking at isnt cheap at $200 though.

But like said before, I am not sure I want to use my PC as my music server and so dont want to invest until I know my final plan. This is why I am trying to learn about music servers.

I can't help you with commercial servers due to a lack of personal experience except for the nice Sony HAP-Z1ES. PM sent.

[JonMarsh]

I am giving thought to trying to implement the ability to play 24/xxx files on my sound system. I am very cautious, maybe overly so, because I have many questions and not many answers I trust.
My questions are:

1) Frankly, how much better is it? Not theoretically but in real practice?
2) Is it a myth that many times a track said to be 24/xxx either isnt (just a 24 bit version of a 16 bit original), or it is, but the masterings can often times be inferior negating most of the sonic superiority you were after in the first place?
3) How critical is its implementation into your system? My fear is many will claim this and that works fine, only to find out later from someone like Jon that its cr@p (compliments to Jon here).

Not sure whether to blush or scratch my head at that comment! :roll:

I'm going to toss out a few ideas, let's call it a variety of pasta on the wall, and let's see what sticks.

• Music is available in a variety of formats- many important items (to you, or to me) may be available only in one format
• In my world, I want to be able to adequately support all the formats that are needed to suport my music collection.
• To give you an example for a low bar reason for having 24 bit support, I reallly like the Beatles, and the best (to my ears) publshed digital Beatles recordings are the 24bit USB stick versions
• No need for high sampling rates, but do need 24 bit.
• Another item: I've bought a number of SACD disks (quite a large number, actually) partly because the mastering job that was done on them was first class. Can't say the format is necessarily better or worse than high res PCM using the same infromation density/bit rate, but they're the recordings I have
• There certainly is controversy about the provenance of high res downloads, particuliarly of popular albums. There are technical obstacles to some of them being really "high res", which is the original recording, analog or digital.
• Another point not to forget is that what we now call 24 bit, with the absolute best equipment generally available, is really only 21 bit. But that is qutie a bit of dynamic range, if the converters are working well.
• Many so called high res players aren't, especailly in the case of DSD- such as ones that convert PCM to DSD with noise shaping.
• In support of that, look what happens when you feed them the classic -90 16 bit 1kHz signal, or the -90 24 bit version. Yes, I'm talking about You, Playback Designs, but there are other purveyors with similar issues.
• I'm realisitically too much of a hardware junkie to just do a listening test of a DAC- there's nothing more revealing than putting it on the bench and looking at high level and low level behavior, both linear and nonlinear distortion
• Because so, SO much of my favorite music is only out on CD, and will never see high resolution releases, I put a premium on how well CD sampling rates are handled. I also believe a player that doesn't handle CD well will make porridge of high resolution material.
• My three favorite DAC's to date are the TotalDAC series, the Berkely Audio RS1, and the Berkely Audio RS2. Why? Because they do so effing well sonically with CD level material...
• BTW, all of those SACD disks? I rip and convert them to 176.4/24 bit material. The effect of noise shaping is still there, in PCM form, but the mastering jobs come through so well I have to say they sound just fine... this is the majority of my "high res" stuff. I do have high res downloads, but it's only about 1/3 of the SACD archives.

Now, as to hardware, I've been through quite a few different solutions, considering I'm not especially well off. The NAD M50 and M52 are no longer made, but properly setup provide an excellent feed for a good DAC.

I've got an AURALiC Airies, with all the updates, but my current conclusion is that it is thin and lightweight sounding compared with the NAD M50. The software is a little bit better, but not greatly so.

Two pieces I really do like, are the Signature Rendu, and the microRendu. If you want to run JRIVER or Roon on something like a MacBook, then use DLNA rendering over the network to the ethernet input to one of those. The Signature Rendu doesn't have the breadth of software support of the micrRendu, but it has an excellent I2S output, and an excellent (electrically) S/PDIF output. The I/2S pairs very well with the PSAudio DirectStream DAC; I know this second hand from my friend in Munich, who was the recipient of the Signature Rendu we bought on Audiogon. It also works quite well driving a TotalDAC D1 Six on the S/PDIF input.

My current favorite is the microRendu, due to it's Roon support. If you don't know what Roon is, get your Google gloves on. I use it with a SonicTransporter running Roon, and controlled by an iPad Pro. I use the USB output into a Berkely Alpha USB, driving the TotalDAC. you've probably seen the thread on that.

For me, the microRendu and SonicTransporter was a low buck investment because I already had the Alpha USB. IF you DON'T have an Alpha USB, then it's a lot more expensive proposition- but not more expensive than the Signature Rendu, depending on the power supply you use. I'm NOT a fan of USB in the digital path, but the Alpha USB interface provides huge common mode isolation and very good local clocks. I'm just saying, it's a pretty solid solution. I'm undecided yet whether to use an upgraded Mutec with Rubidium oscillator in the path to the DAC or not- I just swapped my Brainstorm DCD8 to my Munich friend for some Acoustic Revives- he did a big order a couple of months ago.

In all of this, keep in mind to get the best results you need a good preamp in all cases, or a DAC that uses an analog (of sorts) volume control. The Phison PD2 is an interesting looking unit from Denmark, and even has what looks to be a good DAC built in at a reasonable price. I've had good results with units as inexpensive as a Cambridge Audio 851e, but I'm currently using a Halcro DM10. This March when I was in Munich we did a ton of preamp shoot outs, on his system with Eggleston Savoy's and DM88's, and you'd likely be surprised how much different the preamps sounded. His favorite is the modified Cello Chorale, early generation, that he has. IF you have a good preamp with balanced connectivity that you're happy with, don't obsess.

All for now- work beckons, and preparing an LLC converter design training.

[jim1961]

Jon, for clarity, what I meant was many that claim certain things to work fine, you look deeper into, test them, listen, and usually find the flaws and a better solution.

As for your post, its most informative. My budget is very limited though. My Rega DAC I cant afford to replace. That said, it only offers high rez from its cable/S/PDIF inputs. So any solution would have to have that type of output. That eliminates the microRendu as a solution. And the other solutions are out of my price range.

As I am understanding things, to do what I am asking, I need not just a outboard computer, but a file vault and a interface (ipad or such). Its too bad your impression of the AURALiC Aries wasnt more positive, but I greatly appreciate your honesty about it. A AURALiC mini + SSD drive + Ipad just fits into my price range. But it doesnt sound like a good solution.

Probably an even worse solution, but vastly more affordable is getting a ASUS Xonar Essence STX PCIe Sound Card that has cable out and going directly to my DAC with it. For $200 or so, it gives me the capability to get into the hi rez world utilizing my PC as the source. My PC has a 1/2TB SSD hdd which should help things some. It has has a Intel E8400 processor, 8gig's of RAM and runs on win 7 64 bit OS.

[madmac]

My 'pedestrian' (Non-technical) 2 cents is this........I have consistently heard a rather profound difference in sonic performance with Hi-rez formats. Most music in studio these days is digitally recorded in 24 bit audio so if you can play it back in that format, it's an advantage.

I'm not a computer music listening guy but I can give you an example of a specific recording. Diana Krall's "Love Scenes" which by and large is an excellent recording. I have both the red book CD and the Hi-Rez Dvd-audio disc. The CD sounds fantastic and to most people would be absolutely good enough. When I play the DVD-Audio version of it in Hi-Rez.......well.......it's just better and brings the music listening experience to a higher level. However, you have to sit down and critically listen to it to notice the difference.

However, at the end of the day, I find how the music is recorded and the care that goes into it will have a bigger effect on it's final sonic performance than the final resolution it is presented in. Many people on this forum are listening to stuff that was recorded digitally in studio at 24 bit resolution re-issued on vinyl and like it !!

In conclusion, I think it's an advantage for you to have Hi-Rez music listening capability.

[jim1961]

Not a myth

Do you know of a site(s) where hi-rez files are discussed or rated? A place where folks weed out the inferior ones?

Thanks.

[Kal Rubinson]

Do you know of a site(s) where hi-rez files are discussed or rated? A place where folks weed out the inferior ones?

Thanks.

I do not.

[wkhanna]

Sometimes here:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/

[jim1961]

Ive been doing a lot of reading about hi-res. Places like Computer Audiophile and the Steve Hoffman forum offer a lot of opinions. What seems the predominate opinion on the sound quality of hi-res is the same as CD or vinyl; the mastering.

I suppose its easy to get sidetracked and confused by looking at the medium and thinking that that is the determining factor for SQ. While the medium certainly has some bearing in the vinyl vs CD debate, it seems less so on the hi-res one. Whether it be SACD, DVD-A, Blue-ray, or digital downloads from sites such as HDtracks, their doesn't seem a clear difference in terms of SQ vs medium.

In addition to mastering, there is one other critical factor involved in hi-res SQ; implementation. That is, how the 24 bit files get from their source to your DAC. Here, there is a wide array of ideas, methods and strategies. I have only grazed the surface, so I have no educated opinion to offer. But it does seem that if your goal is to surpass CD quality, not just any setup will get you there.

[bigburner]

However, at the end of the day, I find how the music is recorded and the care that goes into it will have a bigger effect on it's final sonic performance than the final resolution it is presented in.

That summarises my experience very nicely.

This article may or may not help. It certainly confuses me because there are times when I'm sure I can tell the difference.

Nigel.

[madmac]

That summarises my experience very nicely.

This article may or may not help. It certainly confuses me because there are times when I'm sure I can tell the difference.

Nigel.

Don't get me wrong here! I have CD's that sound fabulous and dream about what they would sound like in their original 24 bit studio format. The thing is, they are not available in that format so I happily sit back and listen to them and enjoy them on CD. I have CONSISTENTLY listened to other great recordings available in hi-rez format and have consistently noticed an improvement in audio performance in that format.

One the other side of the coin, a badly mastered and recorded performance will just sound bad.......regardless of the medium and resolution it's played back on. In some cases, it will sound even worse in hi-rez !!!

[jim1961]

That summarises my experience very nicely.

This article may or may not help. It certainly confuses me because there are times when I'm sure I can tell the difference.

Nigel.

Many of the claims and conclusions in that article are discredited by professionals in the audio industry. I wouldn't give it too much thought. But it is interesting (confusing) what claims are out there. Any difference in perceived audio quality is dependent on how revealing the system you doing the comparing on is to begin with. And much of how revealing your system is depends on the acoustics of the room the system is being played in. This accounts for such claims as "there is no audible difference between 192K mp3 files and 16/44 Cd quality (yes, I have actually heard someone claim this!).