16/44.1 vs 24/96 and higher sample rates
- Thread starter msagar
- Start date
ranjeetrain
New Member
If you have high end equipment, high-resolution formats will blow you away. The problem is not many recordings are available in genuinely high resolution. Some are just remastered from old tapes. The newly produced records with high resolution offer a great experience.
what is genuinely high resolution? digitally recorded to begin with? thats probably not a very good option. You want to record in analog. tape/vinyl, 8 tracks etc are all analog, superior and contain infinite resolution.
Last edited:
Why not upsample/resample with Foobar? The Sox Resampler plugin works.
BTW, check out MusicBee. It upsamples the same and has a better sound (better bass/runs on the BASS audio library) than Media Monkey. To my ears though Foobar on WASAPI sounds the best (upsampled to 96).
ranjeetrain
New Member
How does someone write the 'experience' in words??
Visit a fellow member living nearby who has a high end system and has high resolution tracks, to experience it.
Last edited:
ranjeetrain
New Member
Genuinely high resolution means
(1) It is not merely software upscaled
(2) The original tapes used were high quality to begin with
(3) Originally engineered in high resolution (digitally or analogue doesn't matter). Analogue by default is not high resolution. There are tons of ways to record and reproduce music poorly using analogue. On the other hand something thoroughly engineered in 24/192 is genuinely high resolution by current standards, even if it is totally digital.
Shivam
Well-Known Member
I recently heard the Flute solo in St. Catherines Church of Bach (24/96)
Flute Solo in St. Catherines Church : High definition music | Audiophile music recordings | HD tracks by LessLoss
The site above provides both the 24/96 and 16/44.1 downloads for this track.
To me the 24/96 sounded more 'there'. The timbre of the musical notes was more realistic and rich. I sometimes felt that there were some harmonics present that I could not very well hear with the 16/44.1 recording. I am not a writer so I can't write much as people do in various reviews or magazines but yes the 24/96 was more enjoyable.
Flute Solo in St. Catherines Church : High definition music | Audiophile music recordings | HD tracks by LessLoss
The site above provides both the 24/96 and 16/44.1 downloads for this track.
To me the 24/96 sounded more 'there'. The timbre of the musical notes was more realistic and rich. I sometimes felt that there were some harmonics present that I could not very well hear with the 16/44.1 recording. I am not a writer so I can't write much as people do in various reviews or magazines but yes the 24/96 was more enjoyable.
I think you can try posting a youtube video of both the tracks playing one after another, will we be able to make out the difference then?
Can I get bollywood / indian tracks in the 24/96 format anywhere on the web or do I need to rip on my own.
Hi musicbee, one question if the software just simply upsamples how can it improve the quality since in the low quality format what is already lost is lost?
The following article explains how upsampling can improve the sound.
http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf
http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf
Ayre audio uses minimum phase digital filter for cd sound reproduction.
http://www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
http://www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
Having listened to Rebecca Pidgeon's "Retrospective" in 16/44.1 and 24/96 (= probably mastered from the studio master, and not a vinyl-rip) in my setup:
The improvement in overall resolution and depth that the 24/96 tracks have over the 16/44.1 tracks is immediately perceptible, even in my modest setup. The difference is clear as day, right from the moment I start playing "Spanish Harlem". With 24/96, the bass is more "rounder" & defined, the sound stage is far deeper, and the sensation of the vocals and the music coming from a black background is far stronger.
Now, I don't know if that has to do with the fact that I use a Xonar STX for digital output: The STX has a clock for 48Khz (and multiples), but it does not have a clock for 44.1Khz (or multiples). Going by this (I'm not sure if I am correct here), tracks in 48Khz and its multiples like 96Khz should sound better in my system (in comparison to tracks in 44.1Khz or its multiples).
The improvement in overall resolution and depth that the 24/96 tracks have over the 16/44.1 tracks is immediately perceptible, even in my modest setup. The difference is clear as day, right from the moment I start playing "Spanish Harlem". With 24/96, the bass is more "rounder" & defined, the sound stage is far deeper, and the sensation of the vocals and the music coming from a black background is far stronger.
Now, I don't know if that has to do with the fact that I use a Xonar STX for digital output: The STX has a clock for 48Khz (and multiples), but it does not have a clock for 44.1Khz (or multiples). Going by this (I'm not sure if I am correct here), tracks in 48Khz and its multiples like 96Khz should sound better in my system (in comparison to tracks in 44.1Khz or its multiples).
Last edited:
Shivam
Well-Known Member
You can download the tracks from the link I had provided for free. Try them out on your own system and find out for yourself. For me the difference was quite a lot (using foobar on windows and an average system).
Indian tracks in 24/96 ? That's still a dream. They have not yet got the CD right. Now they are pushing mp3 (and that too not 320) on discs. Maybe some international performances might be available on 24/96 but I have not seen any till now.
For Indian music, try to find good Vinyls.
I have one question, yesterday I tried playing a 96 24 Pink Floyd Dark of the Moon downloaded from internet but when I played them using XBMC on my Denon 1911 AVR the input info shows 48KHz only. Is there any way of verifying that XBMC is giving the proper resolution. I have a HD 6670 GPU which is presently bit streaming the audio to my AVR.
That wont be a fair test as it looks like the source for 44.1 and 96 are different. If you really want to compare, take a 96 file and reduce that to 44.1. Then listen to both.
Are you using stx for digital out? whats the DAC that you are using?
Looks like the output is being downsampled by Windows 7.
You can fix this in the Windows 7 Sound settings. Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Sound > Double click on HDMI Audio Device > Click "Advanced" tab, select 24bit-96Khz. (It must be "16bit-48Khz" there now).
That should fix it
You can fix this in the Windows 7 Sound settings. Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Sound > Double click on HDMI Audio Device > Click "Advanced" tab, select 24bit-96Khz. (It must be "16bit-48Khz" there now).
That should fix it
Yup, you're right there. Did not think of that. Duhhh!
Yes, I'm using the STX's digital out (Coaxial). I use a Rega DAC.
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Red Mahogany finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
