24/192 a good thing?

[Craig M.]

it would seem that 24/192 recordings actually give worse fidelity than 16/44.1 Click Here.

 

[manicm]

...and he contradicts himself. In one breath he says 'It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions' and in another he says '16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare'

He then mentions 'It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.' But then conveniently doesn't care to state the bitrate threshold at which distinction gets thrown out the window.

And then he spits out the clearly dog's proverbial:

'The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.'

And this one takes the cake - I am clueless when he says 'Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.'

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour.

 

[drummerman]

No idea. To my ageing but sizeable ears even spotify premium sounds just fine these days

regards

 

[Craig M.]

...and he contradicts himself. In one breath he says 'It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions' and in another he says '16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare' Taking into account the noise floor of the room you are in.

He then mentions 'It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.' But then conveniently doesn't care to state the bitrate threshold at which distinction gets thrown out the window.

And then he spits out the clearly dog's proverbial:

'The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.' And just what exactly is your problem with that?

And this one takes the cake - I am clueless when he says 'Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.' I give up. which village is missing a v.i.p.? anyone?

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour. where do you get 128 from? as you just said, he hasn't mentioned a bit rate.

 

[SteveR750]

Dunno, never heard one. Since HD tracks has cut off most of the access of their tracks then I'm not about to find out. It's an interesting article, though; but my understanding of digital audio is close to the Nyquist frequency, so I'm neither convnced one way or another.

Mind you, I suspect that the good 24/96 tracks that I own are more to the remastering than the change in resolution - why? because the improvement over the cd version is not consistent, I have other albums where they sound pretty much the same (i.e. brain gullibility). I have many CDA tracks that sound better than all bar one of my hi res tracks, and some high bitrate MP3 files sound better then both too. I'd have no chance discerning between FLAC and WAV files :silenced:

 

[the record spot]

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour.

He has a point. To some degree anyway. Some of the greatest enjoyment I've had of late is with my 32Gb Touch, using either high bitrate Spotify Premium, or WAV files and with some Sennheiser CX300-II buds.

As for recording quality, I've no doubts that a good recording at 128kbps is a significantly better experience - and a more honest one - than a corresponding duffer at hi-res. By and of itself, hi-resolution is no guarantee of a great musical experience; as ever, that's down to the skill of the produced and the mastering engineer.

 

[Craig M.]

No idea. To my ageing but sizeable ears even spotify premium sounds just fine these days

regards

does premium have a higher bit rate than the free one? i'm not impressed by the free spotify in terms of sound quality, but i send it over airfoil so not sure if that has a detrimental effect.

 

[BenLaw]

Interesting article Craig, thanks I will have a full read when I get some time. Have you experimented much yourself with 24/96 / 24/192 and what are your thoughts?

 

[CnoEvil]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

 

[Craig M.]

It's an interesting article, though;

thanks, i sometimes feel as though posters here don't want to know this sort of thing. good to know someone has read it and not gone straight to rant mode.

Mind you, I suspect that the good 24/96 tracks that I own are more to the remastering than the change in resolution

i'm utterly convinced this is the case. i'm glad they exist though, in the cases where it is a better master.

 

[manicm]

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour.

He has a point. To some degree anyway. Some of the greatest enjoyment I've had of late is with my 32Gb Touch, using either high bitrate Spotify Premium, or WAV files and with some Sennheiser CX300-II buds.

As for recording quality, I've no doubts that a good recording at 128kbps is a significantly better experience - and a more honest one - than a corresponding duffer at hi-res. By and of itself, hi-resolution is no guarantee of a great musical experience; as ever, that's down to the skill of the produced and the mastering engineer.

Oh come on RS, let's not indulge in obfuscation shall we? I will assume the author was talking about the same audio source sampled at different rates, and that's my point of reference too. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. If anything, a pristine recording should show up weaknesses quicker in poor ripping.

 

[Craig M.]

Interesting article Craig, thanks I will have a full read when I get some time. Have you experimented much yourself with 24/96 / 24/192 and what are your thoughts?

cheers, Ben. i have about 10 24/96 albums. they are not all an unqualified success, s.q. wise. after downsampling one of them to 16/44.1, i'm 100% certain the differences are due to mastering, well, either that or the difference is too small for me to hear. i did the comparison when i had the atc kit, i'm sure you know how revealing it is.

 

[manicm]

...and he contradicts himself. In one breath he says 'It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions' and in another he says '16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare' Taking into account the noise floor of the room you are in. What the hell??

He then mentions 'It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.' But then conveniently doesn't care to state the bitrate threshold at which distinction gets thrown out the window.

And then he spits out the clearly dog's proverbial:

'The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.' And just what exactly is your problem with that? Everything

And this one takes the cake - I am clueless when he says 'Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.' I give up. which village is missing a v.i.p.? anyone? I would like to ask the author the very same question

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour. where do you get 128 from? as you just said, he hasn't mentioned a bit rate. I take responsibility for filling in the blanks which the author conveniently left out

Craig, all in good spirit

 

[BenLaw]

No idea. To my ageing but sizeable ears even spotify premium sounds just fine these days

regards

does premium have a higher bit rate than the free one? i'm not impressed by the free spotify in terms of sound quality, but i send it over airfoil so not sure if that has a detrimental effect.

Yes, it goes up to 320 for premium, although not all tracks are at the higher resolution, and it doesn't tell you which! Since upgrading to premium I've done no comparisons v CDs I own, but I think it's great for listening to new music, even straight from the ZP90.

 

[Frank Harvey]

i sometimes feel as though posters here don't want to know this sort of thing.

There are posters that want to know this, but they tend to be on the forum that posted this up this morning

 

[Craig M.]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

:rofl:

i really hope this doesn't go the way of the last one, i'm not even looking for comments as such. i just hope some find it interesting, and maybe some will have their mind put at rest. listening to music is wonderful when you're not worrying about some part of it.

 

[manicm]

...and he contradicts himself. In one breath he says 'It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions' and in another he says '16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare' Taking into account the noise floor of the room you are in. What the hell??

He then mentions 'It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.' But then conveniently doesn't care to state the bitrate threshold at which distinction gets thrown out the window.

And then he spits out the clearly dog's proverbial:

'The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.' And just what exactly is your problem with that? Everything

And this one takes the cake - I am clueless when he says 'Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.' I give up. which village is missing a v.i.p.? anyone? I would like to ask the author the very same question

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour. where do you get 128 from? as you just said, he hasn't mentioned a bit rate. I take responsibility for filling in the blanks which the author conveniently left out

My responses are underlined. Craig, all in good spirit

 

[John Duncan]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

White.

I can't say I can tell the difference between 320k and lossless in any of its forms. The only 24 bit recordings I have are remasters so bad comparisons.

I did notice a difference between Tablified via Airplay and the original in lossless from iTunes the other day though... :-|

 

[Craig M.]

i sometimes feel as though posters here don't want to know this sort of thing.

There are posters that want to know this, but they tend to be on the forum that posted this up this morning

or on the facebook page where i saw it. ******, thought i had a scoop!

 

[Frank Harvey]

Fraid not Craig

 

[Anonymous]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

:rofl:

Is JD the only moderator around? Or simply the only non-clandestine one?

JD, I will refrain from participating in this thread out of sympathy for you. Although I would've responded to Lodge's misleading graph in the now-deceased thread (it's just restin')

 

[Craig M.]

Yes, it goes up to 320 for premium, although not all tracks are at the higher resolution, and it doesn't tell you which! Since upgrading to premium I've done no comparisons v CDs I own, but I think it's great for listening to new music, even straight from the ZP90.

thanks, my girlfriend uses it more than me - i'll see if i can get her to pay for it.

 

[BenLaw]

Yes, it goes up to 320 for premium, although not all tracks are at the higher resolution, and it doesn't tell you which! Since upgrading to premium I've done no comparisons v CDs I own, but I think it's great for listening to new music, even straight from the ZP90.

thanks, my girlfriend uses it more than me - i'll see if i can get her to pay for it.

The least she could do!

 

[Craig M.]

...and he contradicts himself. In one breath he says 'It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions' and in another he says '16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare' Taking into account the noise floor of the room you are in. What the hell??

He then mentions 'It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.' But then conveniently doesn't care to state the bitrate threshold at which distinction gets thrown out the window.

And then he spits out the clearly dog's proverbial:

'The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.' And just what exactly is your problem with that? Everything

And this one takes the cake - I am clueless when he says 'Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.' I give up. which village is missing a v.i.p.? anyone? I would like to ask the author the very same question

So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour. where do you get 128 from? as you just said, he hasn't mentioned a bit rate. I take responsibility for filling in the blanks which the author conveniently left out

My responses are underlined. Craig, all in good spirit

ok. deep breath! the noise floor of the room you are in will probably eat up the first 30 or 40 db of your hearing, anything under this you won't hear. a good pair of headphones will have a flatter frequency response, no crossover distortion, won't be effected by room reflections/modes, be more revealing than a good pair of speakers. i'm not leaving my village anytime soon. i would use 256kbit vbr.

 

[SteveR750]

Craig, I'd definitley recommend upgrading from unlimited to premium, the jump from 160 to 320 is definitely noticeable, and anyway the facility to fill your phone up with tracks at whim is worth double the fee IMO!