24/96 Files?

[CSGO rice]

Where do you guys get them?
I don't have a CD player and am playing music from my computer.
I recently got a DAC that plays up to 24/96, but I checked and all my FLAC music is 16/44.
Where are you guys getting higher quality music for your computer?
Thanks!

 

[robm321]

HDTRACKS

 

[cssarrow]

^
 
You have to buy them most of the time for 24 bit 96khz-192khz.
 
CD Rip FLAC will get you around 16bit 44.1khz to 24bit/96khz(rarely)

 

[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.

 

[sharkz]

Quote:

 
CD Rip FLAC will get you around 16bit 44.1khz to 24bit/96khz(rarely)

 
Unless I am mistaken, all Redbook CD's are 16bit 44.1khz. The only way to go higher with physical media would be SACD's, DVD-A's, or Blue Ray Audio.

 

[Puranti]

^ yep
 

 

[sharkz]

Quote:

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 also have to disagree with this. I am no full blown audiophile, but there is usually an audible difference between high resolution (including DVD-A or SACD) over standard Redbook/Flac files for me. Now this might not be solely based on the higher bitrate, but also the fact that these "premium" forms of music tend to be mastered better or contain previously unheard of masterings. There is also less compression utilized which and lets face it, compression never made music sound better.

 

[Puranti]

Quote:

 
I also have to disagree with this. I am no full blown audiophile, but there is usually an audible difference between high resolution (including DVD-A or SACD) over standard Redbook/Flac files for me. Now this might not be solely based on the higher bitrate, but also the fact that these "premium" forms of music tend to be mastered better or contain previously unheard of masterings. There is also less compression utilized which and lets face it, compression never made music sound better.

 
Okay let's do it simple, there already have been a thread of 50 pages on the sound science sub forum to make people understand that.
Take the same recording. One the "master" sampled at 24/96, now take a good resampler and resample it to 16/44.1.
Now do 10 abx test and come back to tell the results.
 
Now just to clear up things, i'm not arguing about the sample rate of the recording, I'm arguing about the playback samplerate of a recording. A SACD recording will sound the same whether it's playback file is 24/96, 24/192 or 16/44.1

 

[chewy4]

I believe HDCD's can be ripped as 24bit with an encoder, although they only use 20bit. It's the same physical format as a regular CD and can be played as a redbook CD without any special decoding.
 
Like Puranti said it doesn't matter in regards to sound quality though. 24 bit files allow for a larger dynamic range, and that's it. A dynamic range so large, that it would kill you if you had it turned up loud enough to hear the quietest sounds.
 
Fortunately nobody actually makes songs with a dynamic range like that. Tops off somewhere around 60dB, which is well under the dynamic range offered by 16 bit files(96dB).

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

 
I also have to disagree with this. I am no full blown audiophile, but there is usually an audible difference between high resolution (including DVD-A or SACD) over standard Redbook/Flac files for me. Now this might not be solely based on the higher bitrate, but also the fact that these "premium" forms of music tend to be mastered better or contain previously unheard of masterings. There is also less compression utilized which and lets face it, compression never made music sound better.

You are correct that these files are usually mastered differently. That's the only audible difference.

 

[JakeJack_2008]

Quote:

 
Okay let's do it simple, there already have been a thread of 50 pages on the sound science sub forum to make people understand that.
Take the same recording. One the "master" sampled at 24/96, now take a good resampler and resample it to 16/44.1.
Now do 10 abx test and come back to tell the results.
 
Now just to clear up things, i'm not arguing about the sample rate of the recording, I'm arguing about the playback samplerate of a recording. A SACD recording will sound the same whether it's playback file is 24/96, 24/192 or 16/44.1

 
Could you please provide a link to the thread of 50 pages.
 
It depends on the equipment and above all on our ears and brain (brain waves?).
For instance, a  teenger can hear up to 22 kHz, wheras 50+ males can hear only up to 15 kHz, or so.
 
Obviously, masterings, compression, etc play a key role here. Neverthless some of us can hear audible differences
- perhaps only subtle - between high resolution and say 16 bit/44.1 kHz.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

 
Could you please provide a link the thread of 50 pages.
 
It depends on the equipment and above all our ears and brain (brain waves?).
For instance, a  teenger can hear up to 22 kHz, wheras 50+ males can hear only up to 15 kHz, or so.
 
Obviously, masterings, compression, etc play a key role here. Neverthless some of us can hear audible differences
between high resolution and say 16 bit/44.1 kHz.

Here's the link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
I don't think it covers sampling frequency, but 44.1kHz can play up to 22kHz. Not that any music has anything relevant that high up.

 

[JakeJack_2008]

Quote:

Here's the link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
I don't think it covers sampling frequency, but 44.1kHz can play up to 22kHz. Not that any music has anything relevant that high up.

Thanks.
 
 
 
This is very relevant:  http://www.head-fi.org/t/637239/whats-the-highest-general-frequency-music-stops-at
 
 
 
 
Apropos  the 16-bit vs. 20-bit vs. 24-bit resolutions.
I've read somewhere  that human ears can perceive up to 24-bit resolution.

 

[oscarHiFi]

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've done my personal testing and I did hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. It was the same track from the same artist, just different rates. I heard more detail in 24/96 than 16/44.1. The instruments sounded more alive and with even more detail. It all comes down to if you can hear it or not.

 

[Brooko]

I've done my personal testing and I did hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. It was the same track from the same artist, just different rates. I heard more detail in 24/96 than 16/44.1. The instruments sounded more alive and with even more detail. It all comes down to if you can hear it or not.

How did you test? If it wasn't double blind, and volume matched, then it was flawed. Foobar2000 has an abx tool that will allow you to set up a proper test. If you take the original 24/96 master an resample same file to redbook, volume match and abx using 15-20 blind tests - I'd guarantee all those differences you supposedly hear will disappear