Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is 24/192?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is 24/192?

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 

I can't find a straight answer anywhere. Does 24/192 refer to a specific file type or all file types? How do I make sure that I'm ripping 24/192 with EAC? 

 

So confused!

post #2 of 60

24/192 refers to the uncompressed bitrate and bit depth - 24 bits for volume instead of 16 in a CD, and 192kbps instead of 44.1 in a CD. 

 

"File type" can mean several different things, but only an uncompressed file will be this full size.  A losslessly compressed 24/192 file such as a flac or alac will still have 24/192 of information once decompressed, though they won't have that much data in compressed form.  Of course an mp3 or other lossy compression method will yield a file that throws out just about all of the extra information above 20khz (though in reality, all of that information is essentially wasteful noise anyways). 

 

 

You can't really rip 24/192, if youre talking about ripping CDs, since CDs are 16/44.1 by definition.   You can upconvert to 24/192, but nothing will be added by doing so except for wasting storage space

post #3 of 60

Originally Posted by Mischa23v View Post

 

Going to clarify what I stated earlier:

 

Bitt Depth refers to the number of bits you have to capture audio. The easiest way to envision this is as a series of levels, that audio energy can be sliced at any given moment in time. With 16 bit audio, there are 65,536 possible levels. With every bit of greater resolution, the number of levels double. By the time we get to 24 bit, we actually have 16,777,216 levels. Remember we are talking about a slice of audio frozen in a single moment of time.

Now lets add our friend Time into the picture. That's where we get into the Sample Rate.

The sample rate is the number of times your audio is measured (sampled) per second. So at the red book standard for CDs, the sample rate is 44.1 kHz or 44,100 slices every second. So what is the 96khz sample rate? You guessed it. It's 96,000 slices of audio sampled each second.

 

Space required for of stereo digital audio

Bit Depth Sample Rate Bit Rate File Size of one stereo minute File size of a three minute song

16 44,100 1.35 Mbit/sec 10.1 megabytes 30.3 megabytes

16 48,000 1.46 Mbit/sec 11.0 megabytes 33 megabytes

24 96,000 4.39 Mbit/sec 33.0 megabytes 99 megabytes

mp3 file 128 k/bit rate 0.13 Mbit/Sec 0.94 megabytes 2.82 megabytes

So you see how recording at 24/96 more than triples your file size. Lets take a 3 minute multi-track song and add up the numbers. Just to put the above into greater relief, I included the standard MP3 file's spec.

 

Hard disk requirements for a multi-track 3 minute song

Bit depth/sample rate number of mono tracks size per mono track size per song songs per 20 gigabyte hard disk songs per 200 gigabyte hard disk

16/44.1 8 15.1 megs 121 megs 164 1640

16/48 8 16.5megs 132 megs 150 1500

24/96 8 49.5 megs 396 megs 50 500

16/44.1 16 15.1 megs 242megs 82 820

16/48 16 16.5 megs 264 megs 74 740

24/96 16 49.5 megs 792 megs 24 240

 

you should be noting two things now:

1. Recording at 24/96 yields greatly increased audio resolution-over 250 times that at 16/44.1

2. Recording at 24/96 takes up roughly 3 1/4 times the space than recording at 16/44.1

 

Now lets get to the subjective side of how music sounds at these different bit depths and sample rates. No one can really quantify how much better a song is going to sound recorded at 24/96. Just because a 24/96 file has 250 times the audio resolution does not mean it will sound 250 times better; it won't even sound twice the quality. In truth, your non-musically inclined friends may not even notice the difference. You probably will, but don't expect anything dramatic. Can you hear the difference between an MP3 and a wave file? If so, you will probably hear the difference between different sample rates. For example, the difference between 22.05 kHz and 44.1 kHz is very clear to most music lovers. A trained ear can tell the difference between 32khz and 44.1. But when 44.1 and 96kHz are compared it gets real subjective. But lets try to be a little objective here.

 

Lets talk about sample rate and the Nyquist Theory. This theory is that the actual upper threshold of a piece of digital audio will top out at half the sample rate. So if you are recording at 44.1, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22kHz. That is 2khz higher than the typical human with excellent hearing can hear. Now we get into the real voodoo. Audiophiles have claimed since the beginning of digital audio that vinyl records on an analog system sound better than digital audio. Indeed, you can find evidence that analog recording and playback equipment can be measured up to 50khz, over twice our threshold of hearing. Here's the great mystery. The theory is that audio energy, even though we don't hear it, exists as has an effect on the lower frequencies we do hear. Back to the Nyquist theory, a 96khz sample rate will translate into potential audio output at 48khz, not too far from the finest analog sound reproduction. This leads one to surmise that the same principle is at work. The audio is improved in a threshold we cannot perceive and it makes what we can hear "better". Like I said, it's voodoo.

post #4 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post

24/192 refers to the uncompressed bitrate and bit depth - 24 bits for volume instead of 16 in a CD, and 192kbps instead of 44.1 in a CD. 

 

"File type" can mean several different things, but only an uncompressed file will be this full size.  A losslessly compressed 24/192 file such as a flac or alac will still have 24/192 of information once decompressed, though they won't have that much data in compressed form.  Of course an mp3 or other lossy compression method will yield a file that throws out just about all of the extra information above 20khz (though in reality, all of that information is essentially wasteful noise anyways). 

 

 

You can't really rip 24/192, if youre talking about ripping CDs, since CDs are 16/44.1 by definition.   You can upconvert to 24/192, but nothing will be added by doing so except for wasting storage space

 

So where do 24/192 files originate from?

 

Mischa23v, thanks for info. It explains everything perfectly.

post #5 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorpoz View Post

 

So where do 24/192 files originate from?

 

Mischa23v, thanks for info. It explains everything perfectly.


Careful, everything he wrote about subjective quality of >44.1 kHz is extremely misleading, and he won't be able to back any of it up with actually evidence. There has been no test to my knowledge that shows an audible difference with proper equipment and files.

post #6 of 60
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Careful, everything he wrote about subjective quality of >44.1 kHz is extremely misleading, and he won't be able to back any of it up with actually evidence. There has been no test to my knowledge that shows an audible difference with proper equipment and files.


Yah, I understand. It's a very subjective subject and in my opinion, any benefits heard through higher bitrate files is probably placebo. But in any case, if CD's are only 16/44.1, what is the source of 24/96 and 24/192 files?

 

 

post #7 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorpoz View Post

 

So where do 24/192 files originate from?



typically in recording studios they will record in extremely high res (sometimes greater than 32 bits) so that there will not be any audible degredation from the mixing/mastering process. some of these studios will make 24/96 or 24/192 files available for download (from places like hdtracks) because audiophiles want them. the diference in audibility is debated, as you will probably see if you spend any great legnth of time on the sound science board. most major record lables dont release 24/192 tracks because the standard CD format is 16/44.1 and the market for hi res tracks is so small as to not be worth it for most major lables.

post #8 of 60

recording/mastering studios today mostly use hi res digital ADC, so 24/96 or 24/192 are common studio formats for recording the mic feeds

 

most of the mastering/mixing/production is also done in digital starting with the hi res source - although 48 or even 64 bit resolution may be used in the DSP math inside the console

 

some studios release hi res versions (DVD-A, some video DVD music tracks, SACD) but most music today is still distributed in "CD" 16/44 res - or compressed from the CD quality source


Edited by jcx - 1/21/12 at 2:43pm
post #9 of 60
Thread Starter 

Ok cool. So basically, we the consumers are limited to how hi res we can listen to our music based upon what resolutions record labels want to release their music at. That kinda sucks.

 

But then again, there may not be much of an audible difference anyway...

 

Salm0n, you mentioned hdtracks as a place to get hi res music files. What are some other trustworthy places that I can get hi res versions of my music?

post #10 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorpoz View Post

Ok cool. So basically, we the consumers are limited to how hi res we can listen to our music based upon what resolutions record labels want to release their music at. That kinda sucks.

 

But then again, there may not be much of an audible difference anyway...

 

Salm0n, you mentioned hdtracks as a place to get hi res music files. What are some other trustworthy places that I can get hi res versions of my music?


More likely no audible difference, unless you can hear above 20 kHz, and your recording has information past that, and/or you're listening at much too high a volume so the 96 dB noise floor of 16 bits is audible.

 

We are limited in quality not by the bit depth and sampling rate. We are limited by the mastering of the recording, the equipment used to record and master the recording (monitoring speakers and microphones, etc.) and the players themselves (if there are any), whatever distortion they use. All of this is far more important.

 

Why are you interested in tracking down "high res" recordings? You'd be better off tracking down well mastered or remastered recordings, if you want fidelity. These may or may not be "high res", or even vinyl.

post #11 of 60
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


More likely no audible difference, unless you can hear above 20 kHz, and your recording has information past that, and/or you're listening at much too high a volume so the 96 dB noise floor of 16 bits is audible.

 

We are limited in quality not by the bit depth and sampling rate. We are limited by the mastering of the recording, the equipment used to record and master the recording (monitoring speakers and microphones, etc.) and the players themselves (if there are any), whatever distortion they use. All of this is far more important.

 

Why are you interested in tracking down "high res" recordings? You'd be better off tracking down well mastered or remastered recordings, if you want fidelity. These may or may not be "high res", or even vinyl.



Oh it's not that I'm craving hi res files, it's more based on simple curiosity. 

 

What you said about recording/mastering quality makes a lot of sense. So even then, the quality of music that is available to us is limited by how accurately that music is produced.  

 

Where can we find information on how well an album is recorded/mastered? How do we know that what we're buying/downloading is really the "good stuff"?

 

post #12 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorpoz View Post

Oh it's not that I'm craving hi res files, it's more based on simple curiosity. 

 

What you said about recording/mastering quality makes a lot of sense. So even then, the quality of music that is available to us is limited by how accurately that music is produced.  

 

Where can we find information on how well an album is recorded/mastered? How do we know that what we're buying/downloading is really the "good stuff"?


Reviews from those with experience. Some members like LFF track down the best remasters they can find, and remaster audio themselves so they know what to look for. Read all reviews for new remasters on sites like Amazon, not just the glowing positives. Look for info on dynamic range, because new remasters are often dynamically compressed and don't sound very good even if the rest of the mastering is an improvement. Research, basically.

post #13 of 60
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Reviews from those with experience. Some members like LFF track down the best remasters they can find, and remaster audio themselves so they know what to look for. Read all reviews for new remasters on sites like Amazon, not just the glowing positives. Look for info on dynamic range, because new remasters are often dynamically compressed and don't sound very good even if the rest of the mastering is an improvement. Research, basically.



Ok that's pretty much what I was expecting.

 

Well thanks so much for the info. I really appreciate a supremus like you stopping by to inform a little head-fier like me tongue.gif

post #14 of 60

Last bit of advice: Don't ever judge someone by their post count wink.gif

post #15 of 60
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Last bit of advice: Don't ever judge someone by their post count wink.gif



 

Hahaha excellent point

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is 24/192?