Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I hope your are just pulling our chain here with that statement.
I just got done reviewing the new Reference Recordings HRx albums with a resolution of 24 bit / 176.4 kHz. I've never hard anything sound better in my life. In addition I've ripped several DVD-Audio discs at 24/96 and the sound compared to the 16/44.1 version is so much better I can't even listen to the CD version anymore.
We covered this in the 16bit vs 24bit thread. In short, there is absolutely nothing to be gained using 24bit unless you are a recording engineer. There is no added resolution or quality to be gained compared to 16bit and this is true of both the theory and the practice. Unless you can hear sounds up to about 80kHz (normal human hearing is about 20kHz) a sample frequency of 176.4 is just as pointless.
If the recording sounds better it's because they have recorded, mixed and/or mastered it better, not because of the format it's in. In other words, take that recording and re-sample to 16bit/44.1k (using a good quality dithering unit) and it would not be possible to hear a difference.
The high def stuff is usually identical. Pretty much all music for the last decade has been recorded at higher bit depths/sample rates and then dithered down to 16/44.1.
Recording or processing is better using the higher rates because it allows for more headroom but for playback there is no advantage. If you can fool the public though it's a great way to generate some extra cash!
I have compared identical files at differing bit depths and sample rates, and without question there is a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. The difference is more apparent with more revealing systems, so if one thinks there is no difference, my guess is that a fair comparison was not done and/or an appropriate system was not used. Much has been said about the importance of overtones and how they influence how real a recording sounds, and they are captured more at higher sampling rates, just like they are captured on tape. Greater bit depths and sampling rates do afford extra headroom for recording purposes but that is from the perspective of eventual dithering to 16/44.1. That does not mean that there is no sonic difference between the dithered and non-dithered files. Go listen to a track cut on tape that is transferred to 24/96 and one that is transferred to 16/44.1 (or dithered down). There should be an audible difference, with the 24/96 being very close to equaling the tape, and the 16/44.1 falling short of that goal.
Linear Mode
