24/96 Files? - Page 5

Happy Holidays Head-Fiers

For fun and games I downloaded Sox (which I read is one of the best audio converters) and I converted a 24/96 WAV file to a 16/48 FLAC.  I must admit that I did not hear a difference and the file size was 1/3 the size.  I realize the redbook standard is 16/44.1, but would you think 16/44.1 or 16/48 would be better for playback quality and portability?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 

Welcome to Head-Fi, sorry about your wallet!    

You were not kidding, it has already cost me a new Westone W3 Gold that I could not pass on for $239.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puranti 

There is no difference, in terms of sound quality, between a 16/44.1 file and 24/96 just a way to make people pay more thinking they're getting something better.

The quality is the same and it takes less space on your HDD than a 24/96 file.

I have done a lot of comparisons in this regard and I find the major differences have to do with mastering. If I take a hi-resolution recording (say 96-24) and manually convert to (44-16) I don't hear a significant difference. The results will depend of course on your playback DAC. Older DACs will sound different than newer DACs. Newer DACs (AK4396) will sound the same.

Just My Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe_cool 

I have done a lot of comparisons in this regard and I find the major differences have to do with mastering. If I take a hi-resolution recording (say 96-24) and manually convert to (44-16) I don't hear a significant difference. The results will depend of course on your playback DAC. Older DACs will sound different than newer DACs. Newer DACs (AK4396) will sound the same.

Just My Opinion

I am new to digitally ripping vinyl so I did not realize that by default I saved my WAV files as 16-bit depth,  That explains why the 96-16 sounded minimally better than the 48-16.  I would need make a 96-24 FLAC to have a better comparison.  

I have been debating this to myself for a long time. Most of my music collections are in 128-192kbps aac/mp3, and since I started reading headfi a few months ago I have been contemplating to buy some 24/192 from HDTracks. But before spending a fortune on that, I decided to try to re-rip some of my CDs to FLAC using EAC and compare them to aac iTunes rips. Admittedly, I would be hard pressed to tell the differences with my current system. I think the FLACs sounded a bit more lively.. or probably not, I can't tell for sure. It might as well a psychological effect (it wasn't an ABX). What I now know for sure is that I am not missing a great deal of details from my aac/mp3 rips (at least not in my current setup) and should be content with them for now.

Well, that's my opinion. Of course YMMV depending on your ear/gear. But I think it is wise to do the above check before dumping a lot of money on 24/96 musics, at least make sure your gear is good enough to reveal the differences, if any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j123my 

I have been debating this to myself for a long time. Most of my music collections are in 128-192kbps aac/mp3, and since I started reading headfi a few months ago I have been contemplating to buy some 24/192 from HDTracks. But before spending a fortune on that, I decided to try to re-rip some of my CDs to FLAC using EAC and compare them to aac iTunes rips. Admittedly, I would be hard pressed to tell the differences with my current system. I think the FLACs sounded a bit more lively.. or probably not, I can't tell for sure. It might as well a psychological effect (it wasn't an ABX). What I now know for sure is that I am not missing a great deal of details from my aac/mp3 rips (at least not in my current setup) and should be content with them for now.

 

Well, that's my opinion. Of course YMMV depending on your ear/gear. But I think it is wise to do the above check before dumping a lot of money on 24/96 musics, at least make sure your gear is good enough to reveal the differences, if any.

Another great post. Thanx  everyone!!!

Obviously, if one has an extremely revealing rig (fantastic transport, dac and headphone amp, very revealing cans, extemely expensive cables) and above all golden ears one can tell the difference more easily, even if it's a subtle one.

All I know for now is that  I will not spend a penny on  any 24-bit/192kHz  files.

However, I'll try some 24-bit/96kHz from the HDTracks.com, just for the heck of it.

The difference between 24/96 and 16/44 has a whole lot more to do with the 96 (sample rate) than the 24 (resolution). The only real purpose of high resolution in audio is to give lots of headroom when producing music; in the end, not even the dynamic range of 16-bit is used to its fullest extent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tus-Chan 

The difference between 24/96 and 16/44 has a whole lot more to do with the 96 (sample rate) than the 24 (resolution).

At least for those few who can hear well above 21 kHz. For most people, the bandwidth of 22.05 kHz is more than enough. Here you can find an example of a 44.1 kHz sample being lowpass filtered in 2 kHz steps down to 10 kHz; try to find the highest frequency version that you can still tell apart in an ABX test from the unfiltered sample.

Until we experience 24/96 as in a 24 channel/96 speaker arrangement we are now it appears at the end of our hi-fi journey. There's no getting around it. Stereo and three way speakers will not get us beyond where we are today. Multi channel, multi crossover, multi speaker technology has been around for years and is now economically possible. I wonder what the producers are waiting for. Also. if you need proof of where things need to go just get out any solo album--guitar, piano, vocal, what ever. It sounds awesome right. Now get out the orchestra album. What happened. Let's petition for multi channel.