Petition for High Definition Music Downloads.

[qusp]

oh I agree, if we are talking 'remasters' my point is the major benefit you are getting with the dither is because you are sending it to a 24bit+ dac, so why not just go native?

I wouldnt pay extra for a 24/48 remaster, but I would probably if it was natively 24bit. I just see zero need to downsample to 16, then redither to 24bit.

the whole hires market needs a kick in the guts with the amount of nonsense thats being sold as hires, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt demand higher and I simply see no need for 16bit anything when to be useful it needs to be kludged up to 24bits in the dac. I would rather 24/48 to 16/96 for my use. I would prefer 24/96 or 24/192 though the latter starts to actually perform worse on some dacs, 24/96 seems the sweet spot.

24/48 is then spun up to 1.536MHz (edit: incorrect its 384KHz, its 384 that goes up to 1.536MHz) in my dac anyway and, but I prefer the 24bits be there. personal taste I guess, since the real stuff is there.. just seems like a really messy signal path to me

Originally Posted by jcx

I don't object if 24/96 is on offer - but 1st ask for the 96


companies are offering 24/44, 24/48 as "hi res" - ever hear of the Beatles? - any guess what the master tape dynamic range of that era was?

24/44, 24/48 should be denounced as consumer fraud


there is no issue with volume control as has been explained - multiply it out, send the top 24 bits to the existing 24 bit DAC in most every current digital audio player - like the software already does

[Soundtrackmixer]

Originally Posted by sometimesuk

You cant please everyone!

That's for sure

I have actually been burned to the ground in the Sound on Sound forum for even asking for anything higher than 16 Bit. They are telling me the exact opposite and have told me that 24 Bit offers no improvement over 16 Bit, if its produced correctly in the first place. They have even said that even asking for 24 Bit would discredit the petition.

This could largerly stem from the fact that most of them still work in the Redbook CD world. While 24 bit largely benefits the recording side of things, there is absolutely no reason in a world of cheap storage and Bluray disc that one has to downcovert from 24 bits to 16 bits if they don't have to. There is certainly no harm in asking for a more pure approach to delivering audio to the masses.

Obviously I don't agree with them, as I believe I can hear the differences.

I can as well.

As for as dropping vinyl, if they are going to press a vinyl copy anyway this is no more work for them, as the Masters are generally done in the digital world anyway. I've also left in the physical format, as its still a huge market, but yes I think that downloads are the future.

The infrastructure for mass delivery of vinyl has been obliterated, so it is a waste of time to ask this of a major record company. It does not have a huge market as you state, the market is niche to the extreme. The record companies are not going to spend resources to create two masters(one for digital and one for vinyl) especially if the ROI is relatively low as it is with vinyl. They will devote resources to a high quality digital master that can be used over several digital formats with some alterations. A master created for digital does not sound very good on a vinyl disc.

[Soundtrackmixer]

Originally Posted by jcx

done that blind with higher sample rate and good dither like I'm advocating?

Why bother?

what I am trying to warn against is the apparently popular thinking that 24/44 or 24/48 is a meaningful improvement for consumer music delivery format - "hi res" should be 1st about higher sample rate - that is the edge of known psychoacoustics that is "too tight"

You said in a earlier post that there is no conclusive listening test that allows us to identify 24 bit from 16 bit with proper dither. Here is another reality - there is no conclusive test that I know of that has been able to identify 44.1khz from 88.2khz as well, so with both being inconclusive why choose a higher sample rate over a high bit rate - or have them both being higher than Redbook CD? Your position makes no sense to me.

Can you also explain to my why choose 16 bit with dither over 24 bit when most recording now days is done at 24 bit? If you don't have to downcovert to fit a certain format, then why do it?

with good dither even 16/44 doesn't have a noise problem with real music, played back in real consumer's living rooms or even good home theater rooms which seldom reach NC-20-25

No, it does not have a noise problem, it has a fidelity problem. With certain types of music, the Redbook standard is enough. With Classical and Jazz, it is clearly not enough.

A good mixer and mastering engineer worth their salt attempts to create the best mix they can. They don't mix or master to the noise floor of the rooms of the end user(that is a moving target), they mix and master for the best result, and let the chips fall where they may in the field.

but Nyquist at 22 kHz is a tight squeeze for known human audio perception frequency limits, practical considerations of anti-image/reconstruction filtering

Now here is a reason for higher sampling rates.

by increasing sample rate, with dither, you also push down the perceptually weighted noise floor, "for free"

Nothing that envolves dither is "for free". When you use dither, there is a sonic penalty that is paid, and it comes in the form of veiling the audio, and hardening it as well. It makes digital audio sound "digital". With dither you are using noise to lower the noise floor of a downcoverted signal. To some, that noise is audible. Based on this, why introduce another process if you don't have to? Why advocate adding something that was not there in the first place when you don't need to?

As Bob Katz has said "You can't live with dither, and you cannot live without it". There is no free.

[miklos]

"While this is fine for radio broadcasts,*"
It is not fine at all! Especially not for FM.

[jcx]

Nothing that envolves dither is "for free". When you use dither, there is a sonic penalty that is paid, and it comes in the form of veiling the audio, and hardening it as well. It makes digital audio sound "digital"...

do you hear this with SACD? - doesn't seem to be a common criticism of the format

[sometimesuk]

Soundtrackmixer - I am not sure if your the same bloke on the Sound on Sound forum, who has decided to lock the thread, just because, one small aspect of my petition had the words 24 Bit - but you are coming across as very narrow minded.

There are two sides to the argument. I'm not interested in the technical debate, I just want the best quality sound, regardless.

We should be working together, and just let those within the industry decided how to achieve it. Its already clear that different companies use different techniques, so why argue amongst yourselfs, when its clear that different techniques will be used depending on where the recording is made and mastered.

[qusp]

huh, he would seem to be pro 24bit...

[Soundtrackmixer]

Originally Posted by jcx

do you hear this with SACD? - doesn't seem to be a common criticism of the format

That is because that noise is pushed above 30khz. You cannot push dither that high with CD. The best you can do is between 10-22khz which is within our hearing range.

[sometimesuk]

Does seem that way - ignore me. No offense intended.

Looks like i jumped in with two feet as I always do. I was just really grieved at the blokes in the Sound on Sound forum.

[Pano]

As technology changes, we see things like the DVD/Bluray combo pack. Obviously different resolutions and probably different masters for the two versions. No reason audio can't do the same, either by disc, or by download.