[GregC]

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?  

 

[GregC]

Quote:

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.

 

[joe_cool]

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 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

 

[GregC]

Quote:

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.  

 

[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.

 

[JakeJack_2008]

Quote:

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.

 

[autoteleology]

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.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

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.

 

[sterling1]

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.

 

[peterBj]

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.

There is a big difference.
But the main advantage is gained in the recording process,recording and mixing.
The smooth and warm sound that our recordings are famous for,is to a great deal thanks to 24/96.
We have experimented with different formats at our studio and found that 24/96 was the best sounding format for our purposes.
But once we have finished recording,we found that you can down sample to even mp3 format and the sound quality is still pretty good,and that is not the case with a file recorded                 in 16 /44, in our experience.
I suggest you get hold of an originally recorded file of 24/96,not an up sample.
This is probably where the root of the misconception lies,in all these older recordings that have somehow magically been transformed to 24/96 or 24/192.
I have some horrible remasters in my CD collection.I.e."Ella and Louis,''is a great sounding LP, but the 24 bit CD remaster I have, is horrible.
(It now lives it's life in my 83 year old mothers car stereo,and there the added smile curve has a purpose,the car,and the stereo in it,is from '92)

 

[skamp]

I suggest you get hold of an originally recorded file of 24/96,not an up sample.

I suggest that you ABX an original recording at 24/96, and a straight downsample of that recording to 16/44.1, subsquently upsampled again to 24/96 (to compare apples to apples), both tracks volume matched (replaygain applied). The probability that you're guessing must be lower than 5%. You can use foobar2000 with the ABX comparator for that.

Professionals like you ought to know better.

 

[peterBj]

hi Skamp
I think you quote me a bit out of context.
I am talking about the recording process,
i.e.multi track audio being recorded and mixed.
That is were the benefit of i.e.24/96 resolution is to be gained.
At the source.
When recording in 24/96 we are at mix down using less equalization and the reverb tails just sound so much better,than at 16/44 or 24/44.
 
Frans and I were the engineer/producer team behind all 10 of the official Carmen Gomes inc.albums.the 8 previous albums were recorded for the now no longer existing Byton/Via label.
These recordings were done in 24/44 and maybe even the first 2 in 16/44.
But when we went to 24/96 for the "Torn'',and the ''thousand Shades of Blue'' albums,everything(mixing and mastering just got so much easier).
The samples on our site from the different recordings we have made, are just simple mp3's,yet people comment on how good they sound,that is because the source was recorded at 24/96 MULTITRACK.
If I was to take one of the songs we are selling and do the test you suggest,I'm sure I would fail,even with a 320 or 256 mp3 thrown in for good fun, I'd probably fail.
But if I was to go back in the studio, bring back in the 4 musicians,put back up the 3 drum mic's,the double bass mic,the guitar mic,the vocal mic,the two room mic's.take just as much care when placing the microphones,that is listen, record,move the mic or mic's,listen record,repeating the process many times,driving the musicians crazy,then record the whole song in 16/44,mix it down in 16/44,and then compare the two,then I would tell the 24/96 file immediately.
I know this for sure because we did so.
We actually were very skeptical to the whole higher resolution thing in the beginning.It was also a question of money,to record higher resolution(24/96) we had to upgrade the computer we were using, if we wanted to record more than 8 tracks simultaneously,and being a very small company that was a expense we could do with out at that moment.But boy are we happy with the investment.(the musicians too)

 

[JakeJack_2008]

Quote:

hi Skamp
I think you quote me a bit out of context.
I am talking about the recording process,
i.e.multi track audio being recorded and mixed.
That is were the benefit of i.e.24/96 resolution is to be gained.
At the source.
When recording in 24/96 we are at mix down using less equalization and the reverb tails just sound so much better,than at 16/44 or 24/44.
 
Frans and I were the engineer/producer team behind all 10 of the official Carmen Gomes inc.albums.the 8 previous albums were recorded for the now no longer existing Byton/Via label.
These recordings were done in 24/44 and maybe even the first 2 in 16/44.
But when we went to 24/96 for the "Torn'',and the ''thousand Shades of Blue'' albums,everything(mixing and mastering just got so much easier).
The samples on our site from the different recordings we have made, are just simple mp3's,yet people comment on how good they sound,that is because the source was recorded at 24/96 MULTITRACK.
If I was to take one of the songs we are selling and do the test you suggest,I'm sure I would fail,even with a 320 or 256 mp3 thrown in for good fun, I'd probably fail.
But if I was to go back in the studio, bring back in the 4 musicians,put back up the 3 drum mic's,the double bass mic,the guitar mic,the vocal mic,the two room mic's.take just as much care when placing the microphones,that is listen, record,move the mic or mic's,listen record,repeating the process many times,driving the musicians crazy,then record the whole song in 16/44,mix it down in 16/44,and then compare the two,then I would tell the 24/96 file immediately.
I know this for sure because we did so.
We actually were very skeptical to the whole higher resolution thing in the beginning.It was also a question of money,to record higher resolution(24/96) we had to upgrade the computer we were using, if we wanted to record more than 8 tracks simultaneously,and being a very small company that was a expense we could do with out at that moment.But boy are we happy with the investment.(the musicians too)

Yes, high-res is much better for the recording and mixing and mastering.
But, if one transfers, say, a 24-bit/96kHz to a regular cd resolution 16-bit/44.1 kHz
it's hard to hear, if at all, the difference in sound quality.
 
If HDTracks were selling their high resolution files converted to 16-bit/44.1 kHz files the sound quality
would not deteriorate and those files would be cheaper. Am I right?

 

[peterBj]

Quote:

Yes, high-res is much better for the recording and mixing and mastering.
But, if one transfers, say, a 24-bit/96kHz to a regular cd resolution 16-bit/44.1 kHz
it's hard to hear, if at all, the difference in sound quality.
 
If HDTracks were selling their high resolution files converted to 16-bit/44.1 kHz files the sound quality
would not deteriorate and those files would be cheaper. Am I right?

 
Well I don't know why they should be cheaper.
It's actually more work,since they do have to convert them and store them next to their other resolutions,and since storage is a lot cheaper now than before,the cost of storage is not really an issue.
And personally I like to have the original resolution of the recordings I buy,then I can all ways convert them myself to whatever I find practical.
But if they charge more for higher resolutions of the same recording I can't see the reason why.
On the other hand making a profit in the recording business is very hard,my company Sound Liaison have not done so yet,but of course we are a cooperation of musicians and engineers not a multinational download site which has to make a profit[size=small] .[/size]
  Everything we make is done out of love for the music ,trying not to make concessions and we [size=small]split [/size]everything 50/50,so it takes longer to make a bit of money than it does for companies paying of musicians with 0.5 or 1% of the profit and sometimes selling badly up sampled recordings as ''studio masters"(all though I do believe that HD Tracks has solved that issue).
But we as a small company are happy that the price of the old i.e.Blue Note recordings remain so relatively expensive,if they were to lower the price of the downloads,like on the CD's,it wound be very hard if not all most impossible to give a chance to new promising talent like Carmen Gomes and Paul Berner.

 

[peterBj]

oh and let me clarify,the above is not in any way a critizism of HD Traks,which I think has offered some great downloads.
I don't now how HD Tracks is paying their artists or how they run their company.