24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

[Thad E Ginathom]

As human beings are not entirely standardised, I'm sure that 20hz to 20khz is not absolute. just as our body temperatures only average 37.something.

However... Play some tones at 20khz and above. Making the big assumption that the what you are listening to them on is actually producing the frequency accurately, and not some lower maximimum it can just reach, listen to that tone. It is barely more than a hiss. I know this is subject to the why 40 violins, not 39, or 38... argument, but I really find it hard to believe that that hiss is adding much to the music,
most of which happens well under 20k: Interactive frequency chart.

 

[msagar]

I think it dangerous and misleading to come to conclusions or comment based upon theories rather than experiencing higher resolution audio.

Nelson Pass quote:
"listening tests remain valuable and that electrical measurements alone do not fully characterize the sound"

 

[Shivam]

1. Human hearing is limited to 20Hz-20KHz. Although empirical, the limits hold good.

** some of the forum members believe they *hear* frequencies above 20KHz. For them the conclusion will be invalid.

** Come to think of it, the guy isn't unreasonable. He even has some advice for the 'I trust my ears' types: "you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible."

Just my two pennies -
I recently developed tinnitus (a condition where I could hear a high frequency constant noise). I was told to get my audiometry done. Thankfully no hearing loss was seen.

On a discussion with the audiometrist it came out that higher end of hearing range quite frequently crosses 20Khz. I can hear upto around 21Khz (and I am not a young boy). The range diminishes with age.

Another condition which the audiometrist told me was something to do with the hearing threshold. I seem to have a lower threshold and can hear very low volume sounds too.

Now that my tinnitus is almost gone.... and with the audiometrist's data, I feel more of a person with 'golden ear'.

 

[venkatcr]

Now that my tinnitus is almost gone.... and with the audiometrist's data, I feel more of a person with 'golden ear'.

How did you get rid of tinnitus?

Venkat

 

[arj]

As human beings are not entirely standardised, I'm sure that 20hz to 20khz is not absolute. just as our body temperatures only average 37.something.

However... Play some tones at 20khz and above. Making the big assumption that the what you are listening to them on is actually producing the frequency accurately, and not some lower maximimum it can just reach, listen to that tone. It is barely more than a hiss. I know this is subject to the why 40 violins, not 39, or 38... argument, but I really find it hard to believe that that hiss is adding much to the music,
most of which happens well under 20k: Interactive frequency chart.

Actually Thad, there is a lot of Bravado doing rounds on this. From what i know, many of us "young Folks" over 35, we dont hear over 12 kHz..some till 15

In fact i remember reading a couple of years back about how in one of the UK stores they put a 18khz transmitter to irritate teenagers who whiled away there time in front of the store and irritating the more mature folks.
Apparently it worked as it gave them a headache !
below 20Hz is a different matter. it is more tactile as you feel more than you hear..so even 6Hz can be felt.
(apparently Tigers Roar has 12 Hz components which is what really rattles ones bones)

 

[arj]

On a discussion with the audiometrist it came out that higher end of hearing range quite frequently crosses 20Khz. I can hear upto around 21Khz (and I am not a young boy). The range diminishes with age.

Another condition which the audiometrist told me was something to do with the hearing threshold. I seem to have a lower threshold and can hear very low volume sounds too.

Now that my tinnitus is almost gone.... and with the audiometrist's data, I feel more of a person with 'golden ear'.

so now you have measured golden ears :clapping:
(not sure if it is a blessing or a curse )

 

[kaushik]

Ok so now i took the call ..
'Bought a 24bit capable DAC'
there was DAC unit doing sale for less , 24/96 stuff over USB
hope fully it will come here in 15 days from our neighboring country

It is a ready-to-use kit ,just add a linear PSU 12V /wallwart .

What I expect from this :
- How much 24bit files will sound better over a normal setup with DIY speakers using vifa drivers and low cost amp combo
-my ears ? which make eg ..Gold/siver/tin ears
the good :
Both ext power /USB power options
Main Dac chip is a Wolfson chip used in Squeezbox Touch
The kit provides I2s for future upgrades.

limitations
Only PC USB playback tests possible : jitter etc will play their game

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Actually Thad, there is a lot of Bravado doing rounds on this. From what i know, many of us "young Folks" over 35, we dont hear over 12 kHz..some till 15

I have sufficient high-frequency hearing loss to make conversation in a crowded place, or a place with background music, or even with a very quiet person in a quiet place impossible. Listening to tones on the computer is revealing, and my hearing is probably worse than you quote there. However, it is revealing in another way too: turn up the volume sufficiently, and yes, I can hear 20K, and even slightly over.

But the PC, Audacity's tone-generator, my sound interface and headphone are not a audiometrist's calibrated kit, so I can't be sure that that hiss really was 20k-plus. I can be sure it was a hiss, though!

In fact i remember reading a couple of years back about how in one of the UK stores they put a 18khz transmitter to irritate teenagers who whiled away there time in front of the store and irritating the more mature folks.
Apparently it worked as it gave them a headache !

Social "Engineering." It is done, in some UK places to prevent youngsters congregating, and people past teens are not affected by it.

Audiophiles probably walk past the machines without ever knowing!

 

[kumarab]

^^I can be 99.99% sure that the hiss you heard was your tweeter going mental. I'm 32, and I top out at 14khz...that's because of our college rock band and jamming/practicing at reference levels. Most people of this age rarely go beyond 16khz. If you truly were hearing 20Khz by turning up the volume..trust me..you'd have every dog in the neighborhood barking for his life.

I think we had this discussion before in some thread...24 bit is pointless for music "reproduction", as is 192khz. DSD and 24/192+ PCM are production/archival formats, they serve little to no purpose in music reproduction.

The thing with obsessive audiophiles is..they spend 200,000 dollars to bring magic into a recording that was probably made on 20,000 dollars worth of equipment.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

^^I can be 99.99% sure that the hiss you heard was your tweeter going mental. I'm 32, and I top out at 14khz.

I'm nearly 60! And my hearing problems started long, long ago. In fact, I can't remember ever not having them, but I know they have got worse in recent years. Imagine reading this with all the consonants smudged!

But, for all that, I am a long way (I hope) from not being able to enjoy music, and, even, fancying that I am hearing a lot of detail in it.

I am not confident that I can tell 96 from 44.1, and I know that I cannot tell 192 from 96. 24-bit has a point if you want to do digital volume control.... but yes, we've been here before. There are examples on the web of reducing the bit depth: one can then make out what changes and when one can personally hear it. Then there are examples of how dithering can change that.

These are valid experiments, for all of us to try. The experience is fascinating. Listening to two recordings, if one made them oneself from the same source, is almost bound to be invalid, for reasons mentioned in the above article and elsewhere: how, for a start, does one get the SPLs equal to within .1db?

There are plugins and effects for PCs that reduce the bit depth. The only one I have works in mono only, but still it is quite interesting to try. Then, having decided that the difference between 24-bit and 23-bit music is "like night and day," get someone else to move the slider. And choose an expert poker player

they spend 200,000 dollars to bring magic into a recording that was probably made on 20,000 dollars worth of equipment.

Can I have a pair of Genelecs, please? :lol:

 

[doors666]

50hz was just an example. When you are sampling 20khz with 44.1k, you get just about 2 samples per wave. There is no way you can get good analog at that rate after conversion.

 

[Shivam]

How did you get rid of tinnitus?

Venkat

Sent a pm.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

"[The Sampling Theorem] hasn't been invented to explain how digital audio works, it's the other way around. Digital Audio was invented from the theorem, if you don't believe the theorem then you can't believe in digital audio either!!"

So you "don't believe in digital audio?"

When you are sampling 20khz with 44.1k, you get just about 2 samples per wave. There is no way you can get good analog at that rate after conversion.

Admitedly, I'm not very good at maths/physics, so I may not understand the answer, but I'm interested to know why you say that?

But... Matrix-HiFi came up on a recent thread here about double-blind testing...

Matrix-HiFi, blind test of digital against analogue

However, the viewpoint here seems to be that higher-resolution formats are worthwhile. Unless I missed it, on a quick reading, I don't think there was a test of 44.1 against 192. But wait ... if they made their own CD, then it must have been 44.1/16? Numbers confusion: help!

The upshot of that test was that commercial vinyl was preferred over commercial digital, both CD and SACD. However, when they made their own digitisations, the consensus was that there was no difference.

There's more stuff on both the Matrix hifi and the xiph.org sites that I want to read up.

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

On 20khz, doors666 has a point. Perhaps the author of the original article ought to be asked to respond

 

[kumarab]

^^Yes, it's correct in the fact that you get only 2.205 samples per second for each waveform of a 20Khz tone. But that's it, the rest is conjecture.

The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was not just some college dissertation..digital audio is built upon it. The example of 20Khz is "exactly" the reason the theorem specifies little more than double the bandwidth to reconstruct an analog waveform.

Even if one somehow buys into the whole 192Khz and ultrasonic ideas, there are few mics can accurately record much beyond 20Khz. Do people ever look at the FR curve of their speakers? Most of all, do they know what their ears can actually hear?

It's all in the mastering. Get yourself some MFSL discs, unadulterated first pressings, etc. As an example, try to source the Japanese Black Triangle pressing of DSoTM..it literally eats the SACD and all audiophile Vinyl pressings for breakfast.

Even if you consider some of the most extreme(artificially induced HF tones,some woodwind acoustic recordings not bandlimited)/golden ear cases..anything above 60Khz is still overkill.

Bottomline..and I must state that this is IMHO..get yourself better recordings/pressings rather than obsessing about sample/bit rates.

 

[sound1]

Bottomline..and I must state that this is IMHO..get yourself better recordings/pressings rather than obsessing about sample/bit rates.

Exactly my thoughts...

To doors666:
Why exactly you feel 44.1khz sampling doesn't work for 20khz signal while you agree that 100hz sampling is enough for 50hz signal?

 

[kumarab]

Re: After 24 bit, someone tries to debunk 192 KHz

24/96 and 24/192 do sound superior to 16/44.1
In fact recently when my computer was sending my 24/96 files as 16/44.1 to my DAC due to a small computer configuration error, all I needed was a few seconds of music to realize that the quality was not upto the mark !

Dunno how I missed this (must make a mental note to read a thread from the beginning)

The example you gave is not relevant. Any sampling rate can only work without distortion if you're feeding it a signal which is band-limited to less than half its bandwidth. Your 24/96 files most probably contain frequencies above 22.05Khz, whether naturally recorded or artificially induced. Sending them as 44.1 to your DAC creates aliasing, and a lot of errors throughout.

 

[doors666]

Exactly my thoughts...

To doors666:
Why exactly you feel 44.1khz sampling doesn't work for 20khz signal while you agree that 100hz sampling is enough for 50hz signal?

i dont think 100hz is enough for 50hz either. Draw a sinewave, take two points on it and show me how are you going to reconstruct the analog back from those two points.

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

But Doors666, if you do 96Khz, you get around 4.2 points. Still not any good. No doubt better than 2 points, but nowhere near what one would require to authoritatively reconstruct a 20Khz signal.

 

[kumarab]

@doors666--Well...you should read some papers on sampling theory, because what you're asking is exactly what it explains. You just need more than double the bandwidth to reproduce a bandlimited singal without distortion. If you're actually questioning that...then we need to go back 30 years and reinvent digital audio.

I think there's a lot of confusion here. The question whether high res sounds better than redbook is completely different from whether 2 or more samples samples are enough...the latter shouldn't even be a question. Yes, they are enough.

Elaborate examples will probably take numerous posts, so I'll just give the example of a very common instrument..the crash cymbal. The crash cymbal can actually produce harmonics over 100Khz. Now, if some audiophile label..say something like 2L got themselves one of the handful of mics that can record upto 40Khz, and created a cymbal heavy recording without limiting the band in any way and mastered at 24/96 or 24/192 or whatever. You can be pretty sure that the recording would contain harmonics circa 40Khz. Now, if you try to make a redbook CD out of it, it WILL sound like trash.

No, you will absolutely not hear those harmonics in the original 24/96 or 24/192, but the redbook will still sound worse because of the heavy aliasing and the increased pressure on your DAC. In fact, even CD producers make mistakes with their HF filters while recording, and that's why most DACs do up/oversampling internally, to reduce the error component. On that note, NOS DACs are an extremely bad choice unless you're someone who scrounges for the most excellent of recordings.

The discussion/examples/questions in this thread are all over the place. The benefits (if any) of native 24/192 files, up/oversmapling to 24/96-192, the sampling theorem, and the limits or 16/44.1 as well as human hearing are ALL "exclusive" of each other.