24/192 a good thing?

[fr0g]

Think about the whole argument you are trying to pass off as fact.

Sampling. If you use a higher bitrate from a source that is analogue then you are definately going to end uwith something close to the original.

Drop that rate down and no matter what you think you hear there WILL be a drop in quality.

I would rather err on the side of higher quality and be more at ease in my mind that what I am listening to is closer to the original analogue sound.

As to the iPod thing, yes I am sorry, I was reading two threads at the same time. But I do feel that a certain company has gotten too big a hold on people and they think it really is hi-fi. A stranglehold that is damaging when you can't find high quality alternatives.

I get the feeling that you haven't actually read the article in question as you display a distinct lack of knowledge about digital audio.

 

[The_Lhc]

Once upon a time it was common sense to state that the world must be flat.

NO IT WASN'T!!!

Not since at least 3,000BC. In any civilization worth the name, no scholar has believed the world was flat.

 

[Alec]

Once upon a time it was common sense to state that the world must be flat.

NO IT WASN'T!!!

Not since at least 3,000BC. In any civilization worth the name, no scholar has believed the world was flat.

And that's IMPORANT gosh darn it!

 

[John Duncan]

Once upon a time it was common sense to state that the world must be flat.

NO IT WASN'T!!!

Not since at least 3,000BC. In any civilization worth the name, no scholar has believed the world was flat.

And that's IMPORANT gosh darn it!

Probably more important than everything that precedes it (and, so's not to single anybody out, every other post on this site tbf...)

 

[juxter1]

I did actually read the article, that's why I said it was pseudo science.

People can, and it has been proven, hear both below and above the limits of human hearing as stated as fact by that article. Just because bats are supposed to be supersonic to human hearing doesn't mean that some people can't hear their echo location. Everyone's hearing is different as are their tastes.

Just because I can hear a wobble on a piano note recorded as an mp3 but I find it not so noticible on flac. If you can't hear the difference between a high bitrate sample and a lower one then just stick with what you are comfortable with, but please don't try and convince me that I can't or try and say that I shouldn't be able to or that you don't believe that I can.

It's my hearing and I know what I hear.

 

[Clare Newsome]

If you can't hear the difference between a high bitrate sample and a lower one then just stick with what you are comfortable with, but please don't try and convince me that I can't or try and say that I shouldn't be able to or that you don't believe that I can.

It's my hearing and I know what I hear.

Well said that man :cheer:

Now if you'd said that in the first place....

 

[Craig M.]

I did actually read the article, that's why I said it was pseudo science.

People can, and it has been proven, hear both below and above the limits of human hearing as stated as fact by that article. Just because bats are supposed to be supersonic to human hearing doesn't mean that some people can't hear their echo location. Everyone's hearing is different as are their tastes.

Just because I can hear a wobble on a piano note recorded as an mp3 but I find it not so noticible on flac. If you can't hear the difference between a high bitrate sample and a lower one then just stick with what you are comfortable with, but please don't try and convince me that I can't or try and say that I shouldn't be able to or that you don't believe that I can.

It's my hearing and I know what I hear.

do you have a link? which other parts do you have a problem with?

 

[steve_1979]

"manicm and fr0g decided to settle this once and for all"

I almost choked on my coffee laughing when I read that. :rofl:

 

[the record spot]

As to the iPod thing, yes I am sorry, I was reading two threads at the same time. But I do feel that a certain company has gotten too big a hold on people and they think it really is hi-fi. A stranglehold that is damaging when you can't find high quality alternatives.

There are plenty of high quality alternatives out there, that's not the issue. The issue is in those companies not being as savvy with their marketing and not producing products like Apple does.

I use an iPod Touch 32Gb. I play Spotify Premium and WAV files through it into a pair of Sennheiser in-ear 'phones. It's some of the best sound quality I've heard. It's a flash drive, delivering CD quality sound through a great pair of headphones. Oustanding quality audio for about £200.

You can get last gen Touch units through resellers or Apple's own clearance store for knockdown prices. I got mine for £150 new from the Dixons one on Ebay.

I'm no Apple fanboy incidentally; I enjoy a wide range of products and sources and use the Touch for what it is - which is a very clever and well integrated device with a host of useful features.

 

[manicm]

If you can't hear the difference between a high bitrate sample and a lower one then just stick with what you are comfortable with, but please don't try and convince me that I can't or try and say that I shouldn't be able to or that you don't believe that I can.

It's my hearing and I know what I hear.

Well said that man :cheer:

Now if you'd said that in the first place....

And people call me a troublemaker - Clare is in the ring, ding ding ding :rofl:

 

[steve_1979]

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.

Spotify Premium is definitely worth the extra £5 for the improvement in sound quality IMO.

I read somewhere that most of the tracks are now available in 320kbps.

 

[Clare Newsome]

If you can't hear the difference between a high bitrate sample and a lower one then just stick with what you are comfortable with, but please don't try and convince me that I can't or try and say that I shouldn't be able to or that you don't believe that I can.

It's my hearing and I know what I hear.

Well said that man :cheer:

Now if you'd said that in the first place....

And people call me a troublemaker - Clare is in the ring, ding ding ding :rofl:

And there's me thinking I was just being even-handed :wall:

 

[Craig M.]

Just because bats are supposed to be supersonic to human hearing doesn't mean that some people can't hear their echo location.

bats can produce sounds below 20khz. still can't find any evidence that humans can hear above 20khz.

 

[shooter]

All I can say after reading the article and any of it is to be believed (and why not) Apples up coming announcement regarding hi-res downloads and streaming from iCloud at 24/96 is a waste of time. Would they get it so wrong?!

(At the moment i don't use the service as I have directly compared 256kpbs iTunes download to CD [which I think is 1411kpbs] and found 256kpbs sterile in comparison. I'd happy convert to iCloud if CD quality was available, couldnt care less about hi-res tbh.)

 

[shooter]

Just because bats are supposed to be supersonic to human hearing doesn't mean that some people can't hear their echo location.

bats can produce sounds below 20khz. still can't find any evidence that humans can hear above 20khz.

If you look hard enough you'll find asthmatic Russian girls can hear upto 50khz...

:rofl:

 

[Overdose]

Just because bats are supposed to be supersonic to human hearing doesn't mean that some people can't hear their echo location.

bats can produce sounds below 20khz. still can't find any evidence that humans can hear above 20khz.

I can hear bats, but definitely can't hear much above 16.5 KHz

 

[Overdose]

At the moment i don't use the service as I have directly compared 256kpbs iTunes download to CD [which I think is 1411kpbs] and found 256kpbs sterile in comparison.

Just wondering if you've tried a 256 download vs a 256VBR high quality rip? I haven't yet done a test myself, but I've converted my FLAC archive to 256 VBR to fit onto an external HDD.

Sound quality seems acceptable though, at any rate.

 

[SteveR750]

to the OP, it IS a good thing, as it keeps someone in a job, and makes some people happy. I for one will happily buy a tump of 24/196 tracks even if they don's sound any better, because deep down I think they *could*, and I'm keeping the world ticking over. Similar reason for buying a chelsea tractor, you never need its capability but it's sure damn good to know you could if you had to. Not quite the same analogy, but music like buying cars is an primarily an emotional response.

Disclaimer - unless they do sound worse, in which case there will be wringing of hands and an irrational desire to upgrade my DAC.

 

[shooter]

At the moment i don't use the service as I have directly compared 256kpbs iTunes download to CD [which I think is 1411kpbs] and found 256kpbs sterile in comparison.

Just wondering if you've tried a 256 download vs a 256VBR high quality rip? I haven't yet done a test myself, but I've converted my FLAC archive to 256 VBR to fit onto an external HDD.

Sound quality seems acceptable though, at any rate.

I haven't compared them od and tbh dont know what a VBR rip is.

So far I've ripped my CDs to ALAC as I have a Mac. Considered a move to iCloud but after some digging found it was only 256kbps playback, same as an iTunes download so that's on hold.

Whats the difference in a VBR rip?

 

[Overdose]

VBR is variable bitrate, more complex sections of music get less compression and the less dynamic sections get higher compression. The resut is an average bit rate of 256, but with higher quality (subjectively) than fixed 256. You can select it for ripping in iTunes settings.

 

[shooter]

Interesting. I'll rip a VBR and compare it to an ALAC rip of the same disc and the 256kbps download. See what I get!

 

[steve_1979]

I'd recommend using VBR because you get the same quality as CBR but with a smaller file size.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I did read some of the article - and the premise is that 16bit resolution is sufficient since dithering allows dynamic range to extend below the 16bit limit which is 96dB - to 120dB.

In reading the following web site page :

http://www.digido.com/dither.html

The relevant text is as follows :

Random numbers such as these translate to random noise (hiss) when converted to analog. The amplitude of this noise is around 1 LSB, which for 16 bit lies at about 96 dB below full scale. By using dither, ambience and decay in a musical recording can be heard down to about -115 dB, even with a 16-bit wordlength.

If you read the process being applied - essentially dithering is using the 24 bit lower 8 significant bits to modulate the LSB of the 16bit word. This is what allows your hearing to perceive the extra 20dB dynamic range - on decaying signals etc.

If i have read this correct, the 16bit word length with dithering can provide the "perception" that you have greater dynamic range, but only a true 24bit word length can accurately recreate this specific dynamic range.

As such, although the article has many reasonable arguments, i would state that 16bits is not sufficient to represent the nuances of an analogue signal.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[SteveR750]

Interesting post Shadders. I can at least understand now why J River bangs on about it's DSP operating in 64 bit environment. It's also interesting to read about ambience, low level detail that telegraphs the sense of space and reality to a sound. It's more than just hearing seperate instruments, which is how I normally interpret the adjective "detail". I have gone back and listened to the 24 bit tracks I have got, and there is indeed more depth to them, apart from Rumours, the rest (mostly REM) don't sound sweeter, or any different tonally which is what I expected perhaps. It's a difficult observation to describe and warrants more focused listening at another time.

 

[CnoEvil]

For those who have a hardy constitution, here's the same debate on another forum:
http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=15939