Are 24bit/192KHz music files really better than the CD standard?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Applying the formula and getting the result wrong by a factor of 1000, you mean! How dumb, this is a complete howler of a mistake. The mike preamp obviously overloaded into slewing on a timescale of several ms, and slewing recovery is ringing at about 7kHz.

Thank you Mark for looking into that, you are right I was dumb (microseconds in place of nanoseconds and that went unchecked, no bell rung into my head):eek:.

And mondogenerator thank you for the polite hint
The more puzzling thing is how a 44.1kHz sampled signal can resolve the claimed 7MHz distortion format to be seen in an audio tracker suite.

To resume:
Red areas. Rise time: 0.045ms. BW: 7.8kHz
Orange area. Rise time: 3.36ms. BW: 104Hz
Green area. Rise time: 4.42ms. BW: 79Hz
Blue area. Rise time: 11.61ms. BW: 30Hz

George
 

Attachments

  • corrected BW.png
    corrected BW.png
    46.2 KB · Views: 170
I did think the scale was ms, but I cant read it well on this mobile phone! (Besides, I often make silly errors, and I too appreciate a gentle nudge when experiencing a brain fart)
:D

Regarding the Kick drum transient and spectral content; while it's been a while since I examined in detail, I am in no way surprised that 7kHz can be seen, whether due to mic/pre distortion or merely the use of a hard beater, or a combination of both.

Thinking something like Vinnie Paul (Pantera) playing HUGE kick drums with Remo Black skins (heavy) and hard beaters, and 1/16ths.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Mark for looking into that, you are right I was dumb (microseconds in place of nanoseconds and that went unchecked, no bell rung into my head):eek:.

And mondogenerator thank you for the polite hint


To resume:
Red areas. Rise time: 0.045ms. BW: 7.8kHz
Orange area. Rise time: 3.36ms. BW: 104Hz
Green area. Rise time: 4.42ms. BW: 79Hz
Blue area. Rise time: 11.61ms. BW: 30Hz

George

Look at other kick drums, that one is an aberration. Funny how this aberation turns into a thread like this, where it becomes proof that all kick drums have high freqs.
 
I know few people who would mic up the struck surface of a kick.

But everyone mics up snares top and bottom, and AFAIAC, a rim shot IS a snare.

Some of those heavy skins tend to sound clicks when you spank them, and then have to EQ the 2nd harm Boom out, but they're so heavy the fundamental is almost below audibility

But that sound IS genre specific.

I could post an interesting Gabba Kick with far more harmonics...
It's not natural, and for effect, but then most music production leans toward effects and not realism.

Realism is a niche thing

The worst popular recording I can think of, that I own, is Police "Walking on the moon". The most awful clipping of Hihats. I mean why???

I cant believe knowledgable people can dismiss the premise of a thread, asserting that harmonics stop at X frequency, in all cases, when any audiophile can point out the vast majority of sound engineers dont engineer for realism in any way - neither do all drummers set their kit up to sound any way other than they desire, overdamped non vented kicks, for example, sound very clicky to the human ear, audience side. Some want Pink Floyd, Bee Gees muddy thuddy kick. Some want as clicky as possible, so you can hear the drummers 1/16th and 1/32nd ghost notes, in machine like pentameter.
 
Last edited:
I cant believe knowledgable people can dismiss the premise of a thread, asserting that harmonics stop at X frequency


Ultra sonic frequenties are real.
But because the human hearing mechanism is a mass/spring system at its core, there is an upper frequency limit of what humans can perceive.
150 years of solid experimentation has set that limit to about 20kHz for people over 20 years old.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
*I don't believe this for 1 second.
You not believing it doesn't make it false. ;)

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.
I have not found that consistently, but often enough. Many people will choose the MP3 because the vocals are warmer and more present. If you point out the lack of ambient details in the MP3, most people can hear it.
It also reminds me of the blind tests of Stradivarius v modern violins, where the soloists used, repeatedly gave the Strad the worst marks.
You should go back and read that again. It's also well worth reading the follow up comments from the people involved in the test. It was nowhere near so clear cut.
The ringing and unpleasantness of mpeg audio in critical frequency zones is something that constantly suprises me,
Especially bad on brushed cymbals so frequently used in Jazz. At low bit rates it can be unbearable. At some of the super low rates used for satellite audio talk channels, I can't even stand the hear the voices.
as well as the sheer amount of analog compression used.
The loudness wars have made it hard for me to buy new music. I find something I like, but it's so compressed I can't stand listening for more than a song length. :(
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.