Which format is (theoretically) superior?

Trefor Patten

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2008
40
0
18,540
Visit site
I am not sure if there can be a definitive answer to this, but recently while looking at Linn's website I noticed a recording which was available as an SACD or a 192/24 bit download. The download is more expensive and I have a few SACDs played via a Cambridge blu-ray/universal which seem rather better that the downloads I have, is this system synergy, or is SACD inherently superior? If so, buying the disc is far better value for money. :?
 

tino

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2011
135
10
18,595
Visit site
According to Linn: (http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx)

"FLAC/WMA files are lossless at various high bit rates, for example, 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz and 192kHz (check each title for actual details). The quality is identical to that of an SACD (Stereo only). "

The SACD may carry a multichannel version of the album (not just stereo). One thing to bear in mind is that the SACD will be copy protected so this may impose some limitation if you want to rip/backup the SACD, or process it in some way e.g. to make an MP3 version for a portable media player or something.

PS If you did play the download file, what would you play it with? PC + DAC, network player? Maybe that is why there is a difference between your SACD quality and download quality? Or perhaps the download tracks you have weren't originally high resolution?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
...and if we continue the "theoretical" thread, then 24/96 and higher have no advantage sonically to 16/44.1

16 bit is plenty for more dynamic range than we ever use on a recording, and 44.1 KHz is enough to completely reproduce the original analogue waveform to just outside the limits of human hearing.
 

spockfish

New member
Jan 18, 2011
34
0
0
Visit site
Well.... that's the theory. The reason many 24/96 files indeed sound better than their 44.1 counterparts has to do with the process. Many studios record initially with 24 bit (direct or first analog and then digitally sampled). And in the process of converting this to CD standard it will introduce (small) errors.

Another thing to take into account is that during this process many recordings are being 'normalized' or even worse: compressed.

I've got a few HD tracks (also from Linn) and they sound stunning to me. So I believe that 24/96 can indeed sound better. With 192 this is becoming less obvious I guess ;-)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
spockfish said:
I've got a few HD tracks (also from Linn) and they sound stunning to me. So I believe that 24/96 can indeed sound better. With 192 this is becoming less obvious I guess ;-)

Linn HD tracks do indeed sound stunning. They are wonderfully produced albums.

However, when I downmixed to 16/44.1 (Audacity), they were equally stunning to me. It's all in the mastering IMO.

Their radio stations (320 kbps mp3) sound equally stunning too.

These days I mostly listen to internet radio, such as Linn, and Spotify (premium, 320 kbps), and I honestly think the sound quality is superb.
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
I just reset my PC *sound*card to resample at 24/192 and immediately spotify sounded much better (EDIT which I was not at all expecting) then 16/48k that had been the defaul setting. It's still not as good as CDA via J River, but if you can put up with splashy treble it's fine.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I listen to Spotify on a Squeezebox which sits under my PC. If I let the PC play, when I load up a large photoshop .PSD file, it causes the music to skip. So now I have the web interface open and use that :)

The Squeezebox, running on wifi never skips a beat, ever.

Actually it was because I was going to upgrade to a SB Touch (for 24/96) that I did the above comparisons, and I'm very happy I did, and so is my wallet.
 

paradiziac

New member
Jan 8, 2011
17
0
0
Visit site
Have to agree, it's all in either the mastering, and/or the fact that some converters/DACs do a better job on 24/96 than 16/44.

On my PC system through the MF V-Link, upsampling to 24/96 sounds a lot better than native 16/44 (as do "hi-res" downloads--not that I have many of them). But, using a reasonable CD transport feeding my DAC 16/44 instead of the V-Link negates the advantage of the 24/96 and both sound equally good.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
For me, the mastering comes first; if you've a badly mastered album, no amount of hi-res capability will save. It's doomed. I've heard some (the Genesis 1976-82 SACD boxset being the biggest culprit here) and earlier CDs are either as good or significantly better.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts