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 3

post #31 of 251

It depends what filter the dac has a 192khz dac normally uses a 0.45/0.55 filter at all sample thats linear responce to 21.6k at 48khz , 43.2k at 96khz , 86.4k at 192khz 

A dac using this filtering will upsample and then back downsample to avoid aliasing disortion

 

This paper explains it better

 

 

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/media/3Tradeoff_of_192_kHz.pdf

post #32 of 251

So, do many/most of you believe there is ZERO advantage to buying 24 bit HDtracks files if they are for playback on my AK100 + SRH1540 (or GR10) kit? Some albums are available ONLY as 24 bit files, but if I am not really gaining anything from the format, I will choose to buy and rip the CD to AIF instead. Opinions, please?

post #33 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post

So, do many/most of you believe there is ZERO advantage to buying 24 bit HDtracks files if they are for playback on my AK100 + SRH1540 (or GR10) kit? Some albums are available ONLY as 24 bit files, but if I am not really gaining anything from the format, I will choose to buy and rip the CD to AIF instead. Opinions, please?
I buy stuff from HD Tracks because the master sounds different from the normal CD pressing...sometimes.

Sometimes meaning, sometimes the master is terrible and you get junk HD files like this due to poor mastering and possible 16/44.1 upsampling.


post #34 of 251

Theres 0 audiable difference between 16 and 24 bit  16 bit has a dymanic range of 96db 24 bit is 144db, no dac/amp has a noise floor -144db , unbalanced cables can only manage -75db , no music has a dymanic range larger than 65db.

0-144db is absolute silence to blown eardrums and if listening on speakers you'd need about 5000 rms to hit 144db.

post #35 of 251
What about compresion?...my understanding is that one of the nice things of the 96/192 format is that the compresion is minimum, and the dynamic range is more close to the original masters
post #36 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post
 

So, do many/most of you believe there is ZERO advantage to buying 24 bit HDtracks files if they are for playback on my AK100 + SRH1540 (or GR10) kit? Some albums are available ONLY as 24 bit files, but if I am not really gaining anything from the format, I will choose to buy and rip the CD to AIF instead. Opinions, please?

 

Stick with ripping CDs - it is cheaper and at least you get a booklet with the CD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post


I buy stuff from HD Tracks because the master sounds different from the normal CD pressing...sometimes.

Sometimes meaning, sometimes the master is terrible and you get junk HD files like this due to poor mastering and possible 16/44.1 upsampling.

Then why is HDTracks selling this garbage at such inflated prices?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie-Luna View Post

What about compresion?...my understanding is that one of the nice things of the 96/192 format is that the compresion is minimum, and the dynamic range is more close to the original masters

What are you talking about? :confused_face_2:

post #37 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post
 

So, do many/most of you believe there is ZERO advantage to buying 24 bit HDtracks files if they are for playback on my AK100 + SRH1540 (or GR10) kit? Some albums are available ONLY as 24 bit files, but if I am not really gaining anything from the format, I will choose to buy and rip the CD to AIF instead. Opinions, please?

 

There may be an advantage if the master is better on the 24-bit version.  Of course, it could just as easily be the opposite.  The bit and sampling rates have nothing to do with it.

post #38 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1990 View Post
 

Theres 0 audiable difference between 16 and 24 bit  16 bit has a dymanic range of 96db 24 bit is 144db, no dac/amp has a noise floor -144db , unbalanced cables can only manage -75db , no music has a dymanic range larger than 65db.

0-144db is absolute silence to blown eardrums and if listening on speakers you'd need about 5000 rms to hit 144db.


Let us not play fast and loose with the facts now.  Unbalanced cables can and do exceed -75 db on the low end. By quite a margin in fact.  The connected equipment may or may not, but even unbalanced electronics are quite capable of exceeding this.  You do have a hard time getting below -120 db with active components, and not many quite reach that. 

 

Music also can have greater dynamic range than 65 db though it isn't common.  Few recordings do.  24 bit if more than enough. 16 bit is likely all you really need for playback.  But no need to put out bad info on other aspects of the signal chain.

post #39 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post
 

So, do many/most of you believe there is ZERO advantage to buying 24 bit HDtracks files if they are for playback on my AK100 + SRH1540 (or GR10) kit? Some albums are available ONLY as 24 bit files, but if I am not really gaining anything from the format, I will choose to buy and rip the CD to AIF instead. Opinions, please?

 

Let your ears decide.

post #40 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 

 

Stick with ripping CDs - it is cheaper and at least you get a booklet with the CD.

 

Strictly speaking, that isn't always true. Case in point: some of the music I have bought from HDtracks is 44.1/16bit music (close to CD quality) and these albums are often priced around $12, which - in many cases - is less than the cost of purchase of a CD, especially if you factor in that my best option for CD purchases is Amazon, which costs extra to ship to me. (I live rural, and music shopping means a 90 mile drive)

 

As for the booklet that accompanies most CDs: I don't care one whit about "liner notes" -- this material often gets a cursory glance and then is never viewed again. I mean, the internet is frequently a much richer source of artist information than what goes into these things. Ive yet to encounter liner notes/booklets that added significantly to the listening experience or my appreciation of the work. YMMV of course. 

post #41 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorJack View Post
 

 

Let your ears decide.


Pray tell, exactly how does one do that without purchasing either the CD, the high resolution download or both?

post #42 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


Pray tell, exactly how does one do that without purchasing either the CD, the high resolution download or both?


I assumed he meant that I ought to buy both and compare. Doing that one time for the sake of making a comparison is something I would think is worth the expense.....once, anyway.

post #43 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post
 


I assumed he meant that I ought to buy both and compare. Doing that one time for the sake of making a comparison is something I would think is worth the expense.....once, anyway.

 

Correct.

 

But if you already know you're only gonna do it once, then why bother at all?

post #44 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie-Luna View Post

What about compresion?...my understanding is that one of the nice things of the 96/192 format is that the compresion is minimum, and the dynamic range is more close to the original masters

Unfortunately no. Dynamic compression happens to master tape and once it is done there is no way, short of having the music rerecorded, to recapture the uncompressed music.
post #45 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorJack View Post
 

 

Correct.

 

But if you already know you're only gonna do it once, then why bother at all?

Ummm...because it would give me at least some data about the quality of my purchases and that information would provide some guidance for future purchases.  If the "high def" purchased version was no better (to MY ears, on MY equipment) than the lossless rip I did from my own CD, I would happily (although perhaps not unerringly) conclude that - in most instances - lossless CD rips would be perfectly adequate for my purposes.

 

I found your "why bother?" question a bit nonsensical, to be honest; puzzling.

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)?