24/192 Music

[blackraven]

Here is an interesting article that I came across that is just food for thought about 24/192 music. I thought that I would post if to stimulate some discussion.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

[Feanor]

Here is an interesting article that I came across that is just food for thought about 24/192 music. I thought that I would post if to stimulate some discussion.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Thanks, BR.

I've seen reference to this article before and some day I really must find the patience to read it all. It's logic is generally compelling but there might be flaws.

For my part I have no reason to believe that I can hear a difference between 24/96 and 24/192. Subjectively and based on only a few recordings, I think 24/96 or 24/88.2 sound better than 16/44.1. But it might only be that more care was take with the production of the hi-rez recordings in question. Anyway I'm not sure I'd pass a DBT ABX test.


Arguably more important is the fact of vast difference in sound quality between one 16/44.1 and the next. I'm inclined to believe that if all 16/44.1 were as good as the very best, there would be no need for any higher rez -- I'm talking about end consumer media. For recording and mastering purposes I'm sure that higher resolution is necessary.

[harley .guy07]

I have personal heard differences as well between 24/96 and 16/44.1. Mostly in the clarity of air around instruments and the overall soundstage and image capability. I won't for sure say that there weren't better mastering work done on the 24/96 track that made it better or it was the fact that it was higher bit and sampling that made the difference. I will say that for me I would like the recordings I listen to to be the same bit rate and sampling as the master recording and I think that is a fair request in today's world. But I also believe that the studios could do much better as far as compression and changing the sound to cater to radio playback on cheap systems and ipods and actually make a audio correct and dynamically correct version of the album for us that like realistic listening and not to play it on cheapo ipods and car systems.

[StevenSurprenant]

I have personal heard differences as well between 24/96 and 16/44.1. Mostly in the clarity of air around instruments and the overall soundstage and image capability.

That's exactly what I hear. 24/96 versus 24/192... No difference to me.

I recorded a vinyl record at 24/192 and converted it to 16/44.1. The 24/192 sounded for all purposes like the vinyl. The 16/44.1 sounded as you described. This applies to every vinyl I copied.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have personal heard differences as well between 24/96 and 16/44.1. Mostly in the clarity of air around instruments and the overall soundstage and image capability. I won't for sure say that there weren't better mastering work done on the 24/96 track that made it better or it was the fact that it was higher bit and sampling that made the difference. I will say that for me I would like the recordings I listen to to be the same bit rate and sampling as the master recording and I think that is a fair request in today's world. But I also believe that the studios could do much better as far as compression and changing the sound to cater to radio playback on cheap systems and ipods and actually make a audio correct and dynamically correct version of the album for us that like realistic listening and not to play it on cheapo ipods and car systems.

I agree with the improvements you hear, and can add some more based on my observations. Not only do I hear more clarity, air around instruments and larger overall soundstage, but I also hear deeper tighter bass, better delineated harmonics and texures, and a better perceptive sense of the size of the hall the recording is done in.

[E-Stat]

Here is an interesting article that I came across that is just food for thought about 24/192 music.

You just have to smile at those who truly believe:

"...there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1..."

Monty should hang out with similar minded folks like Roger Russell, E. Brad Myer, Arnie Krueger, and Peter Aczel. They can share their appreciation of the finer nuances of the musical experience.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You just have to smile at those who truly believe:

"...there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1..."

Monty should hang out with similar minded folks like Roger Russell, E. Brad Myer, Arnie Krueger, and Peter Aczel. They can share their appreciation of the finer nuances of the musical experience.

I understand where he is coming from, but there is a problem with some of his theories. First, there are many speakers coming out now with supertweeters, so inter-modulation distortion is eliminated by its inclusion. My speakers have a supertweeter that covers from 15khz to 50khz. Also they make wideband amps these days even in receivers(onkyo specifically) that extend to 100khz, so they are designed to handle a 96khz sample rate.

Also he does not mention the improvement in imaging as a result of more samples being processed.

Lastly, most audiophiles have a very difficult time moving forward from the past(especially the older ones). One encouraging thing is they are at least embracing digital servers within their system.