Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Are 24bit/192KHz music files really better than the CD standard?
Are 24bit/192KHz music files really better than the CD standard?
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st December 2019, 09:15 PM   #121
MarcelvdG is offline MarcelvdG  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Haarlem, the Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6vheater View Post
There is little difference between 16 & 24 bit depth for direct content.
As my professor friend easily explained it...

16 bit depth is nothing to do with inadequate resolution per se, filters, dithering, you name it, NO, it's simply inadequate for reverb.

The main reason why the CD standard was an altogether lousy compromise.
It truncates the reverb, making it extremely difficult to reproduce a natural acoustic or do meaningful convolution techniques.

End of argument.
That makes sense without dithering. With dithering, you just get some noise added to the reverberation or whatever soft signal is recorded. It is not really additive noise, though, as the noise is statistically dependent on the signal - with 2 LSB peak-peak triangular dither the first and second moments are signal-independent, but the higher moments are not.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2019, 09:39 PM   #122
mondogenerator is offline mondogenerator  England
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CV
Quote:
Originally Posted by diyralf View Post
You have to be a medical wonder. What is the difference between 44.1k and higher sampling rates? At 44.1k you hear all frequncies up to 22k. At 88k or higher you have all audible frequencies and all inaudible frequencies. Nyquist proves that 44.1k is completely sufficient. Higher sampling frequencies are for the dustbin.
Nope. I don't have Golden Ears.

I have tested using random play of the same master track, one at 96k sample frequency, the other rendered to 44.1k.

It is perfectly plausible that the rendering/downsampling of the master to 44.1k is responsible for my perception of more realistic presentation of the higher sample frequency version.

However, for all intents and purposes, I consistently chose the higher sample rate recording, on a blind random playlist.

What mechanism is at work, is not my motivation or interest; I assume and attribute the improvement as being due to sample rate - since this is the only conscious change I made.


It was a clear to me as the change from 320kbps MP3 to PCM/WAV.

But yes as far as proof, I have none, only belief.

FWIW I dont believe in ghosts, never seen one; but I have had a premonition, as a child.

So go figure that riddle.
__________________
Difference of opinion is awesome.
It's what makes the world we live in a verdant tapestry of beauty.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2019, 09:51 PM   #123
cbdb is offline cbdb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Try 96k to 48k. Less proccessing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2019, 10:12 PM   #124
Markw4 is online now Markw4  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbdb View Post
A kick drum doesnt have anything above 2khz, try an EQ.
Beater click can. Googling 'kick beater click 5khz' shows various people are using it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 05:01 AM   #125
6vheater is offline 6vheater
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: space station was in orbit now landed...
Send a message via ICQ to 6vheater Are 24bit/192KHz music files really better than the CD standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pano View Post
IME, once the listening room is very quite, 16 bit recordings have amazing low level details*. There are all sorts of tails and fades that you normally don't hear in typical listening room.

Would 24 bit be even better? I dunno - but I do know that most listening environments cover up the lowest levels of 16 bit. MP3 for sure takes away ambient cues. That's my cheat for telling if it's compressed.
*I don't believe this for 1 second.

Also mp3 uses masking, so literally manipulating your hearing.
It's taking away information which someone with a computer program has assumed you can't hear.

I made up some test files for blind testing "hi end" freaks.
They were our live recordings. (which were as usual 24bit).

What amused me, between the original 24bit recording and the high rate mp3 version the "audiophiles" consistently chose the mp3 version as the one they preferred.
They also didn't notice much difference with 16bit v 24bit.

Once you get people used to masking algorithms and bad recordings (95% of audio), it's amazing how people's hearing has been manipulated en masse.
It reminds me of Pavlov's dogs.

It also reminds me of the blind tests of Stradivarius v modern violins, where the soloists used, repeatedly gave the Strad the worst marks.

I also did a lot of hearing tests, particularly on children 8-14.
It was astonishing to see the hearing damage at this age, where kids were routinely going deaf in the typical "masking regions" (required for skills such as differentiating vowel sounds in languages,- in the 800-1khz region.).
They were constantly being exposed to mpeg audio.

I also did some special masking test files for amp test CDs, with phase alteration of the masked signals over 10 secs, in stereo to reveal at which point listeners could detect the masker v the fundamental.
(The phase change makes the masker stop functioning correctly).
The "audiophiles" were slow to spot it.

The ringing and unpleasantness of mpeg audio in critical frequency zones is something that constantly suprises me, as well as the sheer amount of analog compression used.
Once you get trained to look out for these clues listening to the vast majority of recorded music becomes an ordeal.

Last edited by 6vheater; 2nd December 2019 at 05:06 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 05:45 AM   #126
mondogenerator is offline mondogenerator  England
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CV
CBDB: I already do use 48k in preference to 44k. Not because I know anything but because I guessed that it was better to down sample to 48k as it is an integer division of 96k. Admittedly I have not tested if I can discern the difference in 48k and 96k recordings - which I should do.

6vheater: And yet, the Classical music producers were among the first (or the first) to widely adopt the ADD production process, in 16bit. (Or less)

Applies to DDD and DAD too, I find after googling some, perhaps more so.

Presumably because of the better noise floor/noise free DR, and lack of surface noise etc, in comparison to vinyl reproduction.

I have to admit my own preference is still for AAD recordings, when again presumably, the DR was still optimised for reel to reel tape and then cutting vinyl.
__________________
Difference of opinion is awesome.
It's what makes the world we live in a verdant tapestry of beauty.

Last edited by mondogenerator; 2nd December 2019 at 06:11 AM. Reason: After googling
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 08:25 AM   #127
mandu is offline mandu  Singapore
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
I think the subject can to be split in to higher bit rate better for production or reproduction. A song in 96kHz can take lots of space, leaving CD to have about 2 songs. In future blue ray discs will be available at special price to those who want to hear the unheard and yet complain 192 kHz is better.
MP3 compression is done one time per channel and the two joined as a stereo file.
Obviously the sound quality would be lower. Nowadays, the songs sometimes contain some music so those who like newer songs, MP3 will not be an issue.
Regards.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 08:37 AM   #128
scottjoplin is offline scottjoplin  Wales
diyAudio Member
 
scottjoplin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Penrhyndeudraeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6vheater View Post
The ringing and unpleasantness of mpeg audio in critical frequency zones is something that constantly suprises me, as well as the sheer amount of analog compression used.
Once you get trained to look out for these clues listening to the vast majority of recorded music becomes an ordeal.
A lot of music is recorded that way?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 08:43 AM   #129
Bill Coltrane is offline Bill Coltrane  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markw4 View Post
Then how could it be that back in the early days of CDs sometimes they were not dithered and some people could hear the resulting truncation distortion at the bottom of the 16th bit (-96dBFS)?
If your not listening to music at an avarage of - 10dBfs, this can be very easy to detect, so I'm not surprised.
You have to specify the listening conditions.

Quote:
Its not hard to show that some people can hear distortion at lower levels than that, its not like the people who heard the truncation distortion were all at the exact maximum limit of human perception.
See above plus:
Artifact Audibility Comparisons
__________________
Subjective measurements with the proper protocol is the only thing that matters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:18 PM   #130
Markw4 is online now Markw4  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Quote:
If your not listening to music at an avarage of - 10dBfs, this can be very easy to detect...
Given that the undithered CDs were professionally made commercial releases, CD audio is not better than needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Coltrane View Post
See above...
Please see: http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015N...ed.0020124.pdf
John P. A. Ioannidis - Google Search

Last edited by Markw4; 2nd December 2019 at 01:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Are 24bit/192KHz music files really better than the CD standard?Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upsampling to 24bit 192Khz surfstu PC Based 1 30th September 2009 03:24 AM
24bit/192Khz reissues of the greatest 60's to 80's music-in our lifetime? ashok Everything Else 1 19th September 2009 05:35 PM
FS: 24bit/192kHz dac Tekko Swap Meet 1 17th June 2009 09:27 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki