Sound quality research

[ColinLovesMusic]

Obviously if 16 bit needs to have processing done to it to bring it up to standard then 16bit cannot be regarded as being as good as 24 bit. I have yet again used my ears over technical data and have heard loud and clear that 24 bit sounds better.

How much of your own music have you ever recorded? Don't come back and say you're basing everything you think you know about digital audio on the sound of someone else's recordings. You've no idea if you're listening to exact same master file or not, so it's impossible to draw those kind of conclusions.

I have not recorded any of my own music. I am not a musician or composer. It is not a yardstick by which a person can or cannot hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit. I sometimes convert from one digital format to another like converting itunes m4a to mp3 but I don't record music through mics onto digital recorders or play with things like sony acid pro5 or whatever its called.. Because I don't do that doesn't mean I can't hear the difference. I can hear a difference and obviously there is a difference. Like you say I can't know the origins of how the music was recorded and at what bit depths etc. All I can do is listen. I have read people who do record speak of converting from 16bit up to 24bit. I assume rightly or wrongly that 16bit can be upgraded to 24bit just by convertion. There would not be downloads released as 24 bit downloads if there was no good reason for doing so. Because others can't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't. It is a fact 24bit is superior in sound quality and not just dynamic range and it is a fact 16bit has shortcomings that have to be processed out. Why is it all professionals expert in digital recording are not all saying 16bit 44.1 is as good. Why aren't studio recordings recorded at 16 bit 44.1 if it is as good as any. Why can I hear a difference? Is it just my player or decoder? or what?

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

You used that article to prove the statement that I quoted was wrong, I just stated my interpretation of that article which centers around dither to compensate for the lack of higher bit depths. Dither obviously mitigates the lack bit depth but for the author to state it's 100% foolproof is a tall order and is not rooted in technical fact. Read the piece again.

I did not use to prove anything. I just said not according to this article. Do you have any evidence to disprove what he says?

I assume dither is automatically engaged on 16bit CD players and most users probably have never heard of it. On PC it is a requirement to have a codec pack and digital processor. I install the one of my choice with the most options and choices of quality rather than the default installed windows codec pack and digital processer. Under the options for Bit depths 16, 24 and 32 the usual option is to tick them all. The digital decoder processer is thoughtful enough to provide little drop down boxes explaining what each funtion is. Under 16 bit is an option to engage dither. The explanation for dither is to attempt to overcome the shortcomings of a shallow 16bit depth to bring quality up. I have also never disputed dynamic range improves with bit depth but so does sound quality. Obviously if 16 bit needs to have processing done to it to bring it up to standard then 16bit cannot be regarded as being as good as 24 bit. I have yet again used my ears over technical data and have heard loud and clear that 24 bit sounds better.

Yes but thats on your player. I have seen a 24 bit converted to 16 bit, the soundwave looked exactly the same, it also sounded to my ears exactly the same, others said the same. Interestingly the record company had 2 versions for sale on their website as downloads, the 24bit soundwave did NOT look the same as their 16bit, which I think is a bit of a con and yes they did sound different. So be careful if you are comparing different samples. As I linked to before in a blind test musicians and sound engineers could not tell 320khs mp3 from cd, so picking 16 bit from 24bit will be even harder?

I also frequently cannot hear a difference between CD and 320kbps mp3. At times when I have downloaded a 320kbps mp3 and then heard a CD of the same album there is a difference - mainly is the enphasis of the music. To my ears mp3 always sounds faster lighter and fresher sounding and the CD sound weightier with more depth but also slower and sometime more ploddy and less involving. When 320kbps mp3 is achieved by me ripping CD to 320mp3 then I don't notice. Whether this is limitations in my equipment or does downloading over wireless broadband cause the change. I don't know but I hear a difference. I do indeed hear a better sound in everyway playing back 24bit files and setting my media player to 24bit. If this is down to my own experience and my equipment somehow performing better with 24bit then of course it does prove nothing beyond my own personal experience. I still unconvinced 16bit 44.1kHz sounds the same below 100dB dynamic range and I would have to have it proved to me, because other people saying so and mathematical equations will not convince me.

 

[pauln]

...because other people saying so and mathematical equations will not convince me.

Yeah, maths. What's that all about? No use to man nor beast. As for going to school and learning science... complete waste of time. Don't need any of that nonsense to make a decent amp or invent analogue to digital conversion. It's all magic!

 

[The_Lhc]

...because other people saying so and mathematical equations will not convince me.

Yeah, maths. What's that all about? No use to man nor beast. As for going to school and learning science... complete waste of time. Don't need any of that nonsense to make a decent amp or invent analogue to digital conversion. It's all magic!

Yeah there's no arguing with someone who not only admits he has no idea what he's talking about but is apparently proud of that fact and intends to keep it that way! That's some Grade A stupidity right there...

 

[shadders]

...because other people saying so and mathematical equations will not convince me.

Yeah, maths. What's that all about? No use to man nor beast. As for going to school and learning science... complete waste of time. Don't need any of that nonsense to make a decent amp or invent analogue to digital conversion. It's all magic!

Yeah there's no arguing with someone who not only admits he has no idea what he's talking about but is apparently proud of that fact and intends to keep it that way! That's some Grade A stupidity right there...

Hi,

Hmmmmmm, the poster is stating that an equation does not prove that they cannot hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit. Current tests have so far inferred that people cannot hear the difference.

As such, the poster is not disputing the mathematics, but disputing your inference of the mathematics. This is different and the posters statements are valid.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

...because other people saying so and mathematical equations will not convince me.

Yeah, maths. What's that all about? No use to man nor beast. As for going to school and learning science... complete waste of time. Don't need any of that nonsense to make a decent amp or invent analogue to digital conversion. It's all magic!

Yeah there's no arguing with someone who not only admits he has no idea what he's talking about but is apparently proud of that fact and intends to keep it that way! That's some Grade A stupidity right there...

Hi,

Hmmmmmm, the poster is stating that an equation does not prove that they cannot hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit. Current tests have so far inferred that people cannot hear the difference.

As such, the poster is not disputing the mathematics, but disputing your inference of the mathematics. This is different and the posters statements are valid.

Regards,

Shadders.

This is about hifi and what sounds best. It isn't about science and mathematics. I am not saying the maths and science of digital is wrong and I don't wish to go into it. I will assume you all follow the maths and science so rigourously you are all expert to the point of not being able to listen and trust your own ears anymore. If anyone likes to substitute listening to looking at graphs on a screen then carry on. I have no interest or knowledge of the mathematics and science of it and I don't want to have my mind changed by it. Mathematics has always been pants to me and science isn't much better. I don't know and don't want to know! Simple! My ears are my decider. I didn't invent the technogy I simply use it. If I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit and between different sample rates then that means there is a difference. The only evendence I need is my own ears. I don't care what self proclaimed experts say or think. If anyone here are pros who records the stuff in the studio and knows better than me then all well and good. You record and I will listen to it. You can all believe whatever you like and you can prove whatever you like through maths, graphs and waveforms. There is a difference in quality between 16bit and 24bit. If anyone hasn't heard the difference yet then listen more carefully next time. If people can't still hear a difference I simply means those of us who can hear a difference have got much better hearing. In the mean time enjoy your mathematics and science and I will enjoy my music. I can respond to people without being insulting. I just speak from my own personal experience and I'm not on a crusade to prove anyone else right or wrong. You do it your way, that is fine with me.

 

[The_Lhc]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters. I do pay more for them - not a lot. I used to be victim to the hifi industry marketing stunt of keep the hifi enthusiast dissatisfied - keep the hifi enthusiast spending many years ago but eventually saw through it. It is precisely why nearly everything for me is digital downloads and almost entirely computer based music storage The 24 bit studio master downloads are only my serious music where quality is very important. Most of the time 320kbps MP3 downloads are perfectly good enough and I wonder at times just what it takes to please some people because 320kbps mp3 sounds good to me. I am refering to download and playback. For recording I have many times converted 16 bit 44.1 files to 24 bit 48kHz to hear if the sound is upgraded or upscaled and I don't think it is or even can be. The sound seems to be the same. My senses lie to me or more precise are not always sure. Sometimes I hear differences other times not. Differences are never huge. I am refering to and always have been refering to only A to B comparisons

 

[The_Lhc]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

 

[Electro]

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

The noise you are hearing is just the type of decay that particular cymbal has, you are just as likely to hear it with Cd or a 16/44 download as long as the resolution of the rest of the system is good enough.

Here is a glossary of cymbal sounds.

http://www.sabian.com/en/pages/glossary

And a person asking a similar question from the opposite angle.

https://www.pearldrummersforum.com/showthread.php?277270-Cymbal-Stack-Weird-Decay

If the noise you hear is when the musician is brushing the cymbals it could be that he leaves the brush on the cymbal to alter the decay causing the odd noise in the death throws of the decay .

 

[Infiniteloop]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

Very interesting. What is it that you're listening to? - I'd love to hear some more well recorded Jazz, especially Sax and double bass! - What's your source?

 

[expat_mike]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

Very interesting. What is it that you're listening to? - I'd love to hear some more well recorded Jazz, especially Sax and double bass! - What's your source?

+1 It would be interesting to hear this music.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

Very interesting. What is it that you're listening to? - I'd love to hear some more well recorded Jazz, especially Sax and double bass! - What's your source?

+1 It would be interesting to hear this music.

It is this album - Studio Master 24bit 192kHz flac download option

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-the-sound-of-love.aspx

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

Very interesting. What is it that you're listening to? - I'd love to hear some more well recorded Jazz, especially Sax and double bass! - What's your source?

It is this album . I have the studio master 24bit 192kHz flac download.

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-the-sound-of-love.aspx

I have had a tinker with my laptop media player and I had the 'replay gain' engaged in settings and set to 'analyse on the fly' on the pre-amp, so the media player was raising and lowering the gain constantly as tracks play in an attempt to bring the output up and down to 0.00db. Seems to have been screwing up the sound a bit and me only noticing it on the near silences. I have disengaged replay gain all together and suddenly what sounded good now sounds even better and the prob of sizzling and rustlely brushed symbols has reduced and the decay at end of each track cleaner and clearer. A case of too many gizmos and I don't need automatic replay gain as the volume knob on the amp does a very good job of doing that.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

The noise you are hearing is just the type of decay that particular cymbal has, you are just as likely to hear it with Cd or a 16/44 download as long as the resolution of the rest of the system is good enough.

Here is a glossary of cymbal sounds.

http://www.sabian.com/en/pages/glossary

And a person asking a similar question from the opposite angle.

https://www.pearldrummersforum.com/showthread.php?277270-Cymbal-Stack-Weird-Decay

If the noise you hear is when the musician is brushing the cymbals it could be that he leaves the brush on the cymbal to alter the decay causing the odd noise in the death throws of the decay .

End of track is sounding better now. cymbals are decaying away more cleanly. Had a tinker with laptop media player. Was getting a kind of modulation noise mixing with cymbals at near silence but that has now stopped. Cymbals do sound a bit rustly but you say it is the way it is supposed to be and I want to hear how it is supposed to be. This download is my latest and the detail in it is almost scary. It just proves the quality of a recording is of primary importance before we start blaming our equipment. The audio player I use on the laptop is a fabulous sounding player. It is AIMP developed with best sound quality in mind and from my experience is in a league of its own. Try it people, it is after all free, and it is gen, no nasties like adware or third party unwelcome software.

 

[Infiniteloop]

The point you are missing (quite spectacularly given how often it's been discussed on this site) is that there is NO difference between a 16/44 rip and a 24-bit/96 rip of the same track.

If you can hear a difference, using the same playback mechanism, it is either because your pieces are using different masters, with the 24-bit master having a greater dynamic range (which is extremely common in the commercial download market), or, quite simply, you are deluding yourself through expectation bias, you hear the 24-bit as being better because you expect it to better (This is the point where you say you would never fall for that despite every other human on the planet being completely incapable of avoiding it).

Simply put, you CANNOT "trust your ears". They lie to you, all our senses lie to us.

The point of emphasizing the science is stop people like yourself from being ripped off by the industry trying to charge more for "hi-res" versions of audio that only sound "better" because they use a different master from the CD version.

I am refering to 24 bit downloads of 24 bit studio masters.

Right, which 9 times out of ten use a different master with a larger dynamic range than the 16-bit offering. That's why they sound different.

Taken from the same master they sound exactly the same.

Right OK now I know that and accepting you know more than me explain something to me because I think I know but maybe not.

Q. I have recently purchased 24bit 192khz flac download which has an enormous file size and runs at a average 5000kbps. It is jazz. It is basically double bass, saxaphone and brushed cymbals. Extremely good quality it is, but as each track dies away to silence there is a slight sizzle sound comes in at the treble end on the cymbals when signal is almost gone. Am I right in saying distortion increases as the signal falls with digital recordings and it is distortion. Could it be modulation distortion from frequencies higher than 22kHz getting through? But then in theory as a human I shouldn't be able to hear above that range. The cymbals sound more like a rustle than brushed symbals when the signal has almost died away. If I had opted for a 16bit 44.1 downlaod would the sizzle sound not happen? I know on some equipment or on vinyl the hiss or surface noise would mask such sounds but the download really is truely hiss free as is my system as loudish but comfortable volumes. Explain please!!

Very interesting. What is it that you're listening to? - I'd love to hear some more well recorded Jazz, especially Sax and double bass! - What's your source?

It is this album . I have the studio master 24bit 192kHz flac download.

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-the-sound-of-love.aspx

I have had a tinker with my laptop media player and I had the 'replay gain' engaged in settings and set to 'analyse on the fly' on the pre-amp, so the media player was raising and lowering the gain constantly as tracks play in an attempt to bring the output up and down to 0.00db. Seems to have been screwing up the sound a bit and me only noticing it on the near silences. I have disengaged replay gain all together and suddenly what sounded good now sounds even better and the prob of sizzling and rustlely brushed symbols has reduced and the decay at end of each track cleaner and clearer. A case of too many gizmos and I don't need automatic replay gain as the volume knob on the amp does a very good job of doing that.

All very useful. Thanks Colin!