Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless... - Page 2

post #16 of 251

Lets turn this around a bit, give me the name of a classical redbook cd that sounds as good as or better than the sacd of the same title. I am not saying anybody is wrong or right but I would like to hear for myself. I think in MOST cases I can hear a distinct improvement listening to the sacd layer vs the redbook layer of a hybrid sacd. It could be the mastering for sure but it strikes me as odd that they would devote so much more time and energy in mastering one over the other. I have read most of those papers saying there is no difference and while I admit the science looks solid, the result just confuses me because ( I think) I can hear a difference, a subtle one to be sure but still...

post #17 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPiper View Post
 

Lets turn this around a bit, give me the name of a classical redbook cd that sounds as good as or better than the sacd of the same title. I am not saying anybody is wrong or right but I would like to hear for myself. I think in MOST cases I can hear a distinct improvement listening to the sacd layer vs the redbook layer of a hybrid sacd. It could be the mastering for sure but it strikes me as odd that they would devote so much more time and energy in mastering one over the other. I have read most of those papers saying there is no difference and while I admit the science looks solid, the result just confuses me because ( I think) I can hear a difference, a subtle one to be sure but still...

All SACDs use DSD rather than PCM (which is what all CDs use) to encode the analog sound. So comparing the CD layer of an SACD to the SACD layer is not the same comparing a 16bit/44.1KHz audio file (PCM) to a 24bit/96khz or 192kHZ audio file (also PCM), which may well account for the subtle differences you are hearing.

post #18 of 251

A couple of years ago I bought a Sony C-SACD 222ES and I found that when I went to purchase some SACD's, there weren't many available, and from what I understood at the time was that they really didn't take off like in sales as intended. I wound up finding Pink Floyds (Dark Side Of The Moon), and played it in SACD, then played it in my Sony CDP-C801ES, and the only difference that I could hear was maybe the SACD had a brighter sound…but I actually preferred the sound of it in the Cd format out of the 801ES. I wound up giving the SACD player to my father, i definitely liked the sound of the Cd better, I thought it was warmer and fuller. IMO.

Also besides not being able to find many… at all, I wasn't going to replace 300+ Cd's for SACD's that didn't impress me anyway, so I also felt it was a little bit of a gimmick, to my ears and wallet.

I don't mean to offend anyone that disagrees and loves SACD's, this is just what I heard and how I feel.

post #19 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph69 View Post
 

A couple of years ago I bought a Sony C-SACD 222ES and I found that when I went to purchase some SACD's, there weren't many available, and from what I understood at the time was that they really didn't take off like in sales as intended. I wound up finding Pink Floyds (Dark Side Of The Moon), and played it in SACD, then played it in my Sony CDP-C801ES, and the only difference that I could hear was maybe the SACD had a brighter sound…but I actually preferred the sound of it in the Cd format out of the 801ES. I wound up giving the SACD player to my father, i definitely liked the sound of the Cd better, I thought it was warmer and fuller. IMO.

Also besides not being able to find many… at all, I wasn't going to replace 300+ Cd's for SACD's that didn't impress me anyway, so I also felt it was a little bit of a gimmick, to my ears and wallet.

I don't mean to offend anyone that disagrees and loves SACD's, this is just what I heard and how I feel.

I get where you're coming from but testing a single SACD is hardly what I call an objective test.

post #20 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

I get where you're coming from but testing a single SACD is hardly what I call an objective test.


While what you say is true, the SACD is for all practical proposes a dead format. Sure there still a few labels putting out SACDs but most of these are high priced reissues or obscure classical music and no one is releasing more current or popular music on SACD. Sure Sony is trying to breathe new life into the almost dead DSD format (the encoding scheme used for SACD) with the new big push for DSD downloads and DSD enabled DACs but it is still way too soon to jump on the DSD bandwagon, e.g. remember Betamax.

post #21 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


While what you say is true, the SACD is for all practical proposes a dead format. Sure there still a few labels putting out SACDs but most of these are high priced reissues or obscure classical music and no one is releasing more current or popular music on SACD. Sure Sony is trying to breathe new life into the almost dead DSD format (the encoding scheme used for SACD) with the new big push for DSD downloads and DSD enabled DACs but it is still way too soon to jump on the DSD bandwagon, e.g. remember Betamax.

 

I don't know about that - pretty much every DAC maker out there is making their product DSD compatible these days.

post #22 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

I get where you're coming from but testing a single SACD is hardly what I call an objective test.

Well like I said, it was hard enough too find this on SACD, and I'm very familiar with this Cd, and I wasn't doing a critically objective test to begin with…I just wanted to hear the difference. And like I said, I'm not out too offend anyone, and I was just checking out the difference, and this was enough for me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


While what you say is true, the SACD is for all practical proposes a dead format. Sure there still a few labels putting out SACDs but most of these are high priced reissues or obscure classical music and no one is releasing more current or popular music on SACD. Sure Sony is trying to breathe new life into the almost dead DSD format (the encoding scheme used for SACD) with the new big push for DSD downloads and DSD enabled DACs but it is still way too soon to jump on the DSD bandwagon, e.g. remember Betamax.

Exactly what I felt at the time also about the limited choices too.

And remember DAT also.

post #23 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


And the high resolution one may actually contain LESS information than the CD resolution one, in that many, many high resolution downloads, especially those purchased from HDTracks, do not come with full information booklets containing information such as recording data (time and place of the recording, the equipment used to make the recording, producer, recording engineer, mastering engineer) and musicains, etc. - i.e. LESS information.

 

But hey it costs more and the high end audio press just love high resolution digital audio so high resolution just has to be BETTER :confused_face_2:

 

I had no idea what you're talking about (not staying up to date on "HD" audio or anything above 16 bit / 44.1 kHz as I really couldn't care less about this scam/fad) and at first I thought you were sarcastic, but then I checked that site and you're actually right!

 

What a complete rip-off!

post #24 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

I don't know about that - pretty much every DAC maker out there is making their product DSD compatible these days.

The DAC makers are in business to sell DACs and if adding the latest fad, i.e. DSD, to their product helps to sell more product then why the hell not. But that does make DSD a worthwhile way to spend one's money.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorJack View Post
 

 

I had no idea what you're talking about (not staying up to date on "HD" audio or anything above 16 bit / 44.1 kHz as I really couldn't care less about this scam/fad) and at first I thought you were sarcastic, but then I checked that site and you're actually right!

 

What a complete rip-off!

Agree and thanks!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph69 View Post
 

Well like I said, it was hard enough too find this on SACD, and I'm very familiar with this Cd, and I wasn't doing a critically objective test to begin with…I just wanted to hear the difference. And like I said, I'm not out too offend anyone, and I was just checking out the difference, and this was enough for me.

 

Exactly what I felt at the time also about the limited choices too.

And remember DAT also.

Another thanks!

post #25 of 251

This thread was originally about flac which is PCM rather than SACD which is DSD.

post #26 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

This thread was originally about flac which is PCM rather than SACD which is DSD.


Exactly!

post #27 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KT66 View Post

 
That's just opinion,
I can hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44 if the source is good enough.


I can't hear much difference between 24/96 and 24/192 if any
It's not opinion, it's basic digital audio theory.
44.1kHz can perfectly store frequencies up to 22.05kHz. Unless you're telling me you can hear higher than that then it shouldn't sound different. There are some other complexities like anti-aliasing filters but those changes shouldn't be audible.
That's only 1 aspect of sampling though, the other aspect is filtering.

44.1 kHz / 2 may provide all the data humans can hear, but a sampling rate higher than that might be useful for designing filters, no? A filter capturing 20 kHz signals with a maximum limit of 22.05 kHz is pretty steep compared to capturing 20 khz signals with a maximum limit of say 48 kHz.
post #28 of 251

It's worth pointing out that due to intermodulation distortion, 192kHz could quite possibly sound worse. Some explanations and tests/demos are about a third of the way down this page.

post #29 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by brhfl View Post

It's worth pointing out that due to intermodulation distortion, 192kHz could quite possibly sound worse. Some explanations and tests/demos are about a third of the way down this page.
I've read that, and again, that's only one aspect of higher sampling rates. Aliasing from higher sampling rates is only a problem if it's not filtered.

Read: that ultra-frequency content is only a problem after the DAC. If the DAC filters out this content, then your amp and transducer is ultra-frequency content free.
post #30 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post


I've read that, and again, that's only one aspect of higher sampling rates. Aliasing from higher sampling rates is only a problem if it's not filtered.

Read: that ultra-frequency content is only a problem after the DAC. If the DAC filters out this content, then your amp and transducer is ultra-frequency content free.

Hence 'possibly,' and 'test.'

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?