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

[kumarab]

@msagar: ..and you're absolutely right. Which brings us back to the original point we've been trying to make. That HR/HD downloads may sound better for a variety of reasons--it's just that 16/44.1 being not good enough isn't one of those reasons.

As for 24/192, you should absolutely stick to it if it sounds better to you. I cannot see (or hear) how it can be any better than 24-88.2 (for a Master to DSD source) or 24/96 (for a Master to PCM source).

 

[msagar]

"But it all comes down to what the sound from your speakers can do to your body and mind." Morten Lindberg

2L - the Nordic Sound

 

[msagar]

With the advent of 16/44 - 24/96 - 24/192 downloads we have access to studiomasters from LINN, NAIM, HDtracks and other sources. It is upto listeners to choose the medium of their choice (source).

 

[msagar]

Thad E Ginathom

My interface only supports 96, but, up to that, yes, been there and done that with files I made myself from digitising vinyl. In fact, recorded in 32-bit. No difference that I can hear. In sighted test, I have agonised over detail, "Oh, wow! I didn't hear that before," then back to the 44/16 file and, there it is, the same detail.

Vinyl rips are not EQUAL to native 24-96 or higher resolution master files.

 

[manoj.p]

I can hear the wind blowing on Mars.
So what if your science says it is impossible ...

I can hear the difference in Bi-wiring - so what if your science says principle of superposition, and ALL telecom networks in this world are built upon this principle.

I can hear the difference when I color the backside of a CD black, so what if ALL the data CDs have never had problems with light colored backside.

I can hear the difference between a 44.1kHz sampling and 196 kHz sampling, so what if your science says it makes no difference to my ears because I lack the sensors in my ear to notice the high frequency difference.

LOL, that cracked me up. Almost felt like this scene.
Toh kya hua....DDLJ - YouTube

Watch it.

 

[msagar]

There are people who still believe Earth is Flat. I think membership is still open.


The Flat Earth Society

 

[jls001]

There are people who still believe Earth is Flat. I think membership is still open.
QUOTE]

I thought HFV has quite a few card bearing members already?:lol:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Vinyl rips are not EQUAL to native 24-96 or higher resolution master files.

Your answer has nothing to do with my statement. I was comparing a vinyl source with various specifications of digital files made from it. Master files are irrelevant. Comparing like with like is what counts.

If the original masters were remastered to digital files, at whatever resolution, they should be better than old vinyl: unless the engineer decided to include a lot of scritch-scratching to make it feel authentic :lol:

 

[Kevian]

There are people who still believe Earth is Flat. I think membership is still open.
QUOTE]

I thought HFV has quite a few card bearing members already?:lol:

:lol::lol: good one

 

[gryph0n]

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 !

... and yes vinyl is one of the other options.

When 24 bit data is directly converted to 16 bits, the truncation can cause cyclical artifacts that are audible. Dithering is used when converting from high res to lower res, in order to mask the cyclical artifacts.

Dither - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am inclined to think you weren't hearing the difference between 16 bit & 24 bit audio data, but rather what was audible were artifacts that are caused by conversion.

The opposite direction doesn't cause artifacts, ie, converting 16 bit data to 24 bit data shouldn't introduce any artifacts.

All this means is that conversion from high-res to lower-res can create artifacts. (For eg, you'll run into same artifacts if you convert 16 bit data to 8 bit data). It doesn't prove that 24 bit audio is "better" than 16 bit audio.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Here is another article saying much the same thing. So, in that case, is it worth bothering to read it? I think so, because different people explain different aspects. One thing in this article is an answer to the question, why, on my DAC, does 192khz music undoubtedly sound better than 44.1khz? And it is certainly not the answer that I was expecting!

The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better And When It Isnt)

There is source material from Dan Lavry, who makes stuff that some of us would be very happy indeed to own. The article has picked out some of the the things that are fairly easy to comprehend, but the mathematicians/engineers should follow through to his original paper.

 

[sarith]

I have LP rips from the 70's and 80's (EU LPs) in both 24/96, 24/192 and 32/192. Do I hear a difference? Yes I do. In fact I have same album(s) ripped by same guy with the same audio setup in both 96K and 192K and I could well hear the difference.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Did you check out the article just posted as to the possible reason that you hear a difference?

 

[sameer kumar]

Re: Whither Hi-Rez?

I concur with msagar and even I felt the same ( 24/192 sounds superior)

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I wonder, too, if you read the article --- but it does not say that there is no difference!

I think sarith test is a good one. Start with a known source, and digitise it, then compare results. I've done that with 44 and 96, I could not hear a difference, he could, fair enough. It would be nice to hear that this is a blind test, though, although such things are fiddly to set up.

Guys... sarith and sameer kumar could hear a difference, I couldn't, but that is not what this is about, either way!

 

[sarith]

Yes sir, I did and not just one. The difference is..not exactly a difference..I mean the fqs(low,mid,hi) are almost the same but the sound stage sounds bigger, more spacious (I don't know how to exactly put it into words).

While typing this, I am listening to a song from Massive attack LP ripped in both 96 and 192 and I am doing a side by side comparison by adding both 96 and 192 songs in playlist.

My conclusion is if you have 192khz file, it's fine but if you have 96khz file, you lost almost nothing in terms of sq.