New to high res audio

[angeldust1]

I been using CD's (and SACD's) for decades and up to now having music as digital files has been of little interest unless I was travelling (where I use an iPOD, having 'ripped' my CD collection - but I have no expectations of high quality audio using this device).

I've read a bit about 'better then CD' quality audio files which has caught my interest, and noted my system is compatible (playing through a USB memory stick).

If I understand correctly CD quality is 16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC (or WAV, or whatever file type etc), and high res files are 24-bit/up to 192kHz. Is the sampling frequency the measure of the (potential) sound quality, rather than the bit rate? If so (and please correct me if I am wrong) what I don't understand is where the following options for the same album are being offered:

16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC (£11.49) or 24-bit/44.1kHz (£12.99)

Why would the 24-bit download sound better if the sampling rate is identical? If I don't understand please correct me!

 

[davedotco]

Involving technical, practical and marketing matters.

To keep this as simple as possible, modern recordings are typically made at 24 bit, 96khz. During recording and production the equipment in use will normally operate at even higher resolution so that the degrading of the audio signal caused by the necessary signal manipulations will be too small to affect even a 24/96 master.

This 24/96 recording is then modified (mastered) to suit the format it is being released in. CD standard is, as you know, 16 bit 44.1 Khz. The format was chosen because the effective dynamic range is 96db, far higher than any commercial recording (or playback system for that matter) and a sampling rate of 44.1khz will recreate any frequency up to 22.05 khz with 100% accuracy.

So, put simply, those selling hi-res files are attempting to sell you music that, despite being easily contained in a CD standard data stream, will somehow sound better when contailed in a hi-res data stream.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case, generally, when people can hear a difference between CD standard and hi-res releases, as many people do, it is because the two releases are made from different versions (masters) of the original recordings.

Some companies, Linn for example, are able to go back to the original (master) recordings and produce top quality product using good technique and old fashioned care and attention, I doubt that the extra resolution etc, makes much, if any, difference.

The killer for the music lover is that many record companies make no effort to maximise the quality of their regular CD standard recordings, as this gives them scope to produce better quality versions that can be marketed at higher prices. That such quality could be available on CD standard recordings if they had done the job correctly in the first place is something they would rather you, the consumer, didn't know.

 

[nopiano]

I'm no expert, but I believe the bit rate principally affects the signal to noise ratio, or dynamic range. Many recordings are deliberately or otherwise of limited dr, so this might seem pointless. However, it does mean there is more headroom available which gives recording engineers more freedom with their gain settings. For example, they could record at a lower level to allow for unexpected peaks, without compromising the noise floor or risking overload/clipping.

It is unusual to see different bit rates with the same sampling frequency, however. It isn't just a typo on the website, is it?

 

[nopiano]

I hadn't seen dave's much more thorough reply when I began mine. Would still be curious where this alternative offering was shown. Do you have a link?

 

[The_Lhc]

I'm no expert, but I believe the bit rate principally affects the signal to noise ratio, or dynamic range.  Many recordings are deliberately or otherwise of limited dr, so this might seem pointless. However, it does mean there is more headroom available which gives recording engineers more freedom with their gain settings.  For example, they could record at a lower level to allow for unexpected peaks, without compromising the noise floor or risking overload/clipping.  

It is unusual to see different bit rates with the same sampling frequency, however.  It isn't just a typo on the website, is it?

No, it's more common than you might think, I can't see much point in it (over and above the lack of point of 24-bit audio in general that is).

 

[angeldust1]

Here is one example of the same album being offered at 16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC or 24-bit/44.1kHz FLAC at a slight premium price wise. There are plenty many more like that on 7Digital. Is the 24-bit version going to sound any better at the same sampling frequency?

https://www.7digital.com/artist/gold-panda/release/good-luck-and-do-your-best-5179646

320kbps MP3 + 320kbps M4A£7.49 16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC£8.99 24-bit/44.1kHz FLAC£9.49

Another example, which is what got me thinking, is that there are 16-bit and 24-bit downloads of Radiohead's latest album available (https://amsp.wasteheadquarters.com/products/digital?variant=19690811462):

320kbit MP3 120MB £9
16-bit WAV 515MB £11
24-bit WAV 855MB £13

The sampling frequencies are not listed, but I downloaded the 24-bit one, and it is 'only' 44.1kHz (might have been 48kHz, need to check again) according to my player. I assume thats not going to make a hugh difference to the 16-bit/(presumably)44.1kHz version?

 

[angeldust1]

....and thanks fo the replies so far chaps.

I guess the question is.....is there a reason to change from buying the CD version to downloading instead? If the audio quality is not better I'm not sure I see the point, I'd rather thave the physical disc, and 'rip' it myself as necessary.

 

[davedotco]

Any real, audible differences between the different versions of the tracks offered will not be as a result of 'improved' bit depth/sampling frequency, it will be something else.

Making a qualitive judgement on the sound quality of the different options by comparing the advertised resolution is, by and large, pointless.

Given the low cost of CDs, particularly used, buying and making your own rips is very attractive though it can be quite time consuming in some cases.

I would generally be a bit sceptical of sites selling 'hi-res' downloads, there have been examples of such downloads, at a premium price, that are simply upsampled versions of CD standard recordings.

The problem for the consumer is simply that some 'versions' of a release are better than others, and apart from the few reviews that give a view on sound quality, there is no way, other than listening, to tell which is which. Simply buying the premium priced, hi-res version is no guarantee of the best sound quality.

 

[Frank Harvey]

320kbit MP3 120MB £9

16-bit WAV 515MB £11

24-bit WAV 855MB £13

Knowing the type of music this album is (deep bass, lots going on at any one time etc), I wouldn't be able to ignore the file sizes. MP3, as we know is a compressed format, hence 120mb. The 16bit file is much larger, and we know that will sound better. The 24bit file is more than 60% larger than the 16bit file - there's more information in there. Whether that can be appreciated will depend on the system in question.

I haven't yet come across a hi-res file that sounds any worse than the CD equivalent (buying from reputable places), and generally they sound better (for whatever reason) so where there is a hi-res version available for an album I really like/want, I will always try to purchase instead of the CD or 16bit versions. I do have a limit I will spend on them though, and I wouldn't pay much more than £10-12 (preferably less than £10) for most albums, but I will pay a bit more for favourite albums if necessary.

 

[davedotco]

320kbit MP3 120MB £9

16-bit WAV 515MB £11

24-bit WAV 855MB £13

Knowing the type of music this album is (deep bass, lots going on at any one time etc), I wouldn't be able to ignore the file sizes. MP3, as we know is a compressed format, hence 120mb. The 16bit file is much larger, and we know that will sound better. The 24bit file is more than 60% larger than the 16bit file - there's more information in there. Whether that can be appreciated will depend on the system in question.

I haven't yet come across a hi-res file that sounds any worse than the CD equivalent (buying from reputable places), and generally they sound better (for whatever reason) so where there is a hi-res version available for an album I really like/want, I will always try to purchase instead of the CD or 16bit versions. I do have a limit I will spend on them though, and I wouldn't pay much more than £10-12 (preferably less than £10) for most albums, but I will pay a bit more for favourite albums if necessary.

This is an interesting point, though one that is rarely discussed.

One aspect of the resolution of a hi-fi system can, by measuring the noise, be expressed in 'bits' ie the dynamic range of the system, or if you prefer, the number of bits in a digital data stream that can be reproduced by the system.

Some years ago, working for a hi-end US manufacturer of digital components, we did some reasearch into just what the resolution of a system was. The results were rather enlightening, most of the systems tested had a dynamic range of less than 96dB.

Thats right, an average system, set up in a normal home in the normal way could not fully resolve a true 16 bit signal...!

How can this be the case? Well take this forums favourite budget amplifier, the Marantz PM6005, this amp (typical of most budget models) has a s/n ratio of 102dB, or as it happens, precisely 17 bits.

That is the amplifier alone, any sources connected will reduce this by adding their own noise and that is before taking into account any system noise, caused by mains born or RF interference, component mismatch etc.

In many homes even supposedly decent mid range setups, consistently failed to resolve better than 14 bits.

 

[Al ears]

320kbit MP3 120MB £9

16-bit WAV 515MB £11

24-bit WAV 855MB £13

Knowing the type of music this album is (deep bass, lots going on at any one time etc), I wouldn't be able to ignore the file sizes. MP3, as we know is a compressed format, hence 120mb. The 16bit file is much larger, and we know that will sound better. The 24bit file is more than 60% larger than the 16bit file - there's more information in there. Whether that can be appreciated will depend on the system in question.

I haven't yet come across a hi-res file that sounds any worse than the CD equivalent (buying from reputable places), and generally they sound better (for whatever reason) so where there is a hi-res version available for an album I really like/want, I will always try to purchase instead of the CD or 16bit versions. I do have a limit I will spend on them though, and I wouldn't pay much more than £10-12 (preferably less than £10) for most albums, but I will pay a bit more for favourite albums if necessary.

This is an interesting point, though one that is rarely discussed.

One aspect of the resolution of a hi-fi system can, by measuring the noise, be expressed in 'bits' ie the dynamic range of the system, or if you prefer, the number of bits in a digital data stream that can be reproduced by the system.

Some years ago, working for a hi-end US manufacturer of digital components, we did some reasearch into just what the resolution of a system was. The results were rather enlightening, most of the systems tested had a dynamic range of less than 96dB.

Thats right, an average system, set up in a normal home in the normal way could not fully resolve a true 16 bit signal...!

How can this be the case? Well take this forums favourite budget amplifier, the Marantz PM6005, this amp (typical of most budget models) has a s/n ratio of 102dB, or as it happens, precisely 17 bits.

That is the amplifier alone, any sources connected will reduce this by adding their own noise and that is before taking into account any system noise, caused by mains born or RF interference, component mismatch etc.

In many homes even supposedly decent mid range setups, consistently failed to resolve better than 14 bits.

Perhaps it's better to stick to vinyl then. ;-)

 

[davedotco]

320kbit MP3 120MB £9

16-bit WAV 515MB £11

24-bit WAV 855MB £13

Knowing the type of music this album is (deep bass, lots going on at any one time etc), I wouldn't be able to ignore the file sizes. MP3, as we know is a compressed format, hence 120mb. The 16bit file is much larger, and we know that will sound better. The 24bit file is more than 60% larger than the 16bit file - there's more information in there. Whether that can be appreciated will depend on the system in question.

I haven't yet come across a hi-res file that sounds any worse than the CD equivalent (buying from reputable places), and generally they sound better (for whatever reason) so where there is a hi-res version available for an album I really like/want, I will always try to purchase instead of the CD or 16bit versions. I do have a limit I will spend on them though, and I wouldn't pay much more than £10-12 (preferably less than £10) for most albums, but I will pay a bit more for favourite albums if necessary.

This is an interesting point, though one that is rarely discussed.

One aspect of the resolution of a hi-fi system can, by measuring the noise, be expressed in 'bits' ie the dynamic range of the system, or if you prefer, the number of bits in a digital data stream that can be reproduced by the system.

Some years ago, working for a hi-end US manufacturer of digital components, we did some reasearch into just what the resolution of a system was. The results were rather enlightening, most of the systems tested had a dynamic range of less than 96dB.

Thats right, an average system, set up in a normal home in the normal way could not fully resolve a true 16 bit signal...!

How can this be the case? Well take this forums favourite budget amplifier, the Marantz PM6005, this amp (typical of most budget models) has a s/n ratio of 102dB, or as it happens, precisely 17 bits.

That is the amplifier alone, any sources connected will reduce this by adding their own noise and that is before taking into account any system noise, caused by mains born or RF interference, component mismatch etc.

In many homes even supposedly decent mid range setups, consistently failed to resolve better than 14 bits.

Perhaps it's better to stick to vinyl then. ;-)

If I was still buying music (to own) and in a position (room, budget wise) to induge my interest, then I probably would.

This is despite understanding that an average commercial LP recording will probably have a resolution of around 8-10 bits, ie a dynamic range od some 48-60 dB.

This is still entirely sufficient given that a good modern recording of non classical material will probably have a dynamic range in the 30-40dB region with classical perhaps 10 dB better.

 

[Al ears]

320kbit MP3 120MB £9

16-bit WAV 515MB £11

24-bit WAV 855MB £13

Knowing the type of music this album is (deep bass, lots going on at any one time etc), I wouldn't be able to ignore the file sizes. MP3, as we know is a compressed format, hence 120mb. The 16bit file is much larger, and we know that will sound better. The 24bit file is more than 60% larger than the 16bit file - there's more information in there. Whether that can be appreciated will depend on the system in question.

I haven't yet come across a hi-res file that sounds any worse than the CD equivalent (buying from reputable places), and generally they sound better (for whatever reason) so where there is a hi-res version available for an album I really like/want, I will always try to purchase instead of the CD or 16bit versions. I do have a limit I will spend on them though, and I wouldn't pay much more than £10-12 (preferably less than £10) for most albums, but I will pay a bit more for favourite albums if necessary.

This is an interesting point, though one that is rarely discussed.

One aspect of the resolution of a hi-fi system can, by measuring the noise, be expressed in 'bits' ie the dynamic range of the system, or if you prefer, the number of bits in a digital data stream that can be reproduced by the system.

Some years ago, working for a hi-end US manufacturer of digital components, we did some reasearch into just what the resolution of a system was. The results were rather enlightening, most of the systems tested had a dynamic range of less than 96dB.

Thats right, an average system, set up in a normal home in the normal way could not fully resolve a true 16 bit signal...!

How can this be the case? Well take this forums favourite budget amplifier, the Marantz PM6005, this amp (typical of most budget models) has a s/n ratio of 102dB, or as it happens, precisely 17 bits.

That is the amplifier alone, any sources connected will reduce this by adding their own noise and that is before taking into account any system noise, caused by mains born or RF interference, component mismatch etc.

In many homes even supposedly decent mid range setups, consistently failed to resolve better than 14 bits.

Perhaps it's better to stick to vinyl then. ;-)

If I was still buying music (to own) and in a position (room, budget wise) to induge my interest, then I probably would.

This is despite understanding that an average commercial LP recording will probably have a resolution of around 8-10 bits, ie a dynamic range od some 48-60 dB.

This is still entirely sufficient given that a good modern recording of non classical material will probably have a dynamic range in the 30-40dB region with classical perhaps 10 dB better.

Quite see your point about room / budget as I am rapidly running out of both....