[redrol]

The more important part of a recording is the actual noise that has been recorded. Plenty of older classical recordings have a massive amount of noise as well as low frequency noise which apparently no one noticed in mastering.

 

[Sterling2]

I used to buy 24 bit, 96 kHZ recordings whenever they were available. I have since stopped doing that after I realized that the noise floor for 16 bit is already lower than audible

You’re a smart guy.

 

[niharspol]

The more important part of a recording is the actual noise that has been recorded. Plenty of older classical recordings have a massive amount of noise as well as low frequency noise which apparently no one noticed in mastering.

Agreed. I try to choose newer recordings, but sometimes I don't have much luck.
There's a recording of Rachmaninoff's 2nd PC that I like (Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Rafael Orozco). It has audible noise, but I really like it otherwise. Once the piece begins, my brain forgets about the noise.

 

[bigshot]

Classical music is going to have the highest noise floor. You've got 80 people all sitting under the microphones and a concert hall with traffic outside. But I agree... Who cares once the music starts?!

 

[Slaphead]

The more important part of a recording is the actual noise that has been recorded. Plenty of older classical recordings have a massive amount of noise as well as low frequency noise which apparently no one noticed in mastering.

Or did, but realised that there was not much that could be done about it without damaging the performance, given the technology at the time.

 

[bigshot]

Well, in recordings made at Carnegie Hall, sometimes the subway train goes by underneath during the performance. Not much that can be done about that.

 

[Slaphead]

Well, in recordings made at Carnegie Hall, sometimes the subway train goes by underneath during the performance. Not much that can be done about that.

And those recordings often become very much sought after due to the added character of the performance, even if those ambient sounds are unintended.

 

[bigshot]

Toscanini!

 

[redrol]

Or did, but realised that there was not much that could be done about it without damaging the performance, given the technology at the time.

I understand. Interesting comment however.

 

[theaudiologist1]

Classical music is going to have the highest noise floor. You've got 80 people all sitting under the microphones and a concert hall with traffic outside. But I agree... Who cares once the music starts?!

Does that mean you need powerful amps and need to drive your headphones really loud? My headphones reach 110dB-113dB max. My headphones are high impedance and my amp is not the strongest. Will that ruin my classical experience?

 

[sander99]

Classical music is going to have the highest noise floor. You've got 80 people all sitting under the microphones and a concert hall with traffic outside. But I agree... Who cares once the music starts?!

Does that mean you need powerful amps and need to drive your headphones really loud? My headphones reach 110dB-113dB max. My headphones are high impedance and my amp is not the strongest. Will that ruin my classical experience?

No, at least not because of a high noise floor. If you listen at X dB higher SPL then also the noise will be X dB louder.

 

[bigshot]

If your amp can go up loud enough for listening the way you want, it should be fine.

 

[skhan007]

This thread has been eye-opening. I have not gotten through all the posts, but really have enjoyed reading and learning and will continue to do so. I'm seeing some conclusions being asserted by many, in quite scientific terms, which is useful for me to study.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: To improve upon and go higher than bit/sampling of 16/44.1 would likely produce inaudible differences, if any, so sticking with lossless recordings at 16/44.1 is fine. Audiophiles that assert noteworthy or superior benefits above these values are reporting a placebo effect of sorts. Buying and paying to stream higher resolution at, let's say, 24/96 or greater does not yield a higher quality listening experience. Am I understanding correctly? I haven't read the answer to this one in the thread yet, so apologies if it's already been answered- Does a higher sampling rate above 44.1 kHz (let's say 96, 128, etc.) produce appreciable and audible improvements?

I've just purchased a new DAC that's capable of 32/768 kHz to replace my 10+ year old DAC (which has a max of 24/96), but from what I'm reading, playing my ALAC 16/44.1 music will sound great and perhaps I don't need to re-purchase my favorite albums in 24/192? If so, you all have saved me a ton of cash and I can simply continue with my CD's transferred to my MacBook as ALAC files. My new DAC is a combo DAC/headphone amp and will arrive in a day or two and looking forward to it.

 

[71 dB]

1) This thread has been eye-opening. I have not gotten through all the posts, but really have enjoyed reading and learning and will continue to do so. I'm seeing some conclusions being asserted by many, in quite scientific terms, which is useful for me to study.

2) Please correct me if I'm wrong: To improve upon and go higher than bit/sampling of 16/44.1 would likely produce inaudible differences, if any, so sticking with lossless recordings at 16/44.1 is fine.

3) Audiophiles that assert noteworthy or superior benefits above these values are reporting a placebo effect of sorts.

4) Buying and paying to stream higher resolution at, let's say, 24/96 or greater does not yield a higher quality listening experience. Am I understanding correctly? I haven't read the answer to this one in the thread yet, so apologies if it's already been answered-

5) Does a higher sampling rate above 44.1 kHz (let's say 96, 128, etc.) produce appreciable and audible improvements?

6) I've just purchased a new DAC that's capable of 32/768 kHz to replace my 10+ year old DAC (which has a max of 24/96), but from what I'm reading, playing my ALAC 16/44.1 music will sound great and perhaps I don't need to re-purchase my favorite albums in 24/192? If so, you all have saved me a ton of cash and I can simply continue with my CD's transferred to my MacBook as ALAC files. My new DAC is a combo DAC/headphone amp and will arrive in a day or two and looking forward to it.

1) That's good. The purpose of these threads is to educate if possible.

2) Higher bitrates than 16/44.1 alone mean inaudible differences. In order to have audible differences something else is needed such as different mastering in which case it's not the bitrate, but the mastering causing the differences.

3) Placebo is common especially among people who don't understand digital audio properly and assume audible benefits for hi-res audio based on intuition. Another explanation is some people earn their living selling snake oil and benefit financially when this myth of hi-res consumer audio being better is upheld and spread.

4) Yes assuming those higher streams/files are from the master than 16/44.1 versions. This is because 16/44.1 is technically transparent for human ear. The sampling rate 44.1 kHz is just enough and bit depth is more than needed (13 bits would be just enough). Dither noise makes digital audio 100 % accurate (distortion free) within it's dynamic range. The dynamic range of 16 bit digital audio is technically over 90 dB and perceptually 90-120 dB depending of what kind of shaping if any is used for the dither noise. The needed dynamic range for even the most demanding listening scenarios is 70-80 dB (limited by the properties of human hearing and background noise levels real life listening environments) so it's clear 16 bits is easily enough for consumer audio. In studio, music production, a lot of safety margin is beneficial and hi-res has it's place, but in consumer audio massive safety margins are not needed anymore.

5) No. All it does is make ultrasonics possible, but humans don't hear those frequencies. Dogs, cats and bats do. Those animals claim improvements. Amplifiers and speakers are generally not designed for ultrasonics. Amplifiers can even produce distortions on those very high frequencies that are modulated on lower, audible frequencies. In this sense hi-res audio can be even worse than regular 16/44.1 that takes care sure ultrasonic content is not fed to the amplifier.

6) Yes, you don't need to re-purchase your favorite albums in 24/192 unless those are different (much better) masterings you want. Even in that case I'd downsample those 24/192 files to 16/48 files (48 = 192/4 meaning smooth downsampling even with simple algorithms) and make the files 6 times smaller without any loss of perceptual sound quality.

 

[skhan007]

1) That's good. The purpose of these threads is to educate if possible.

2) Higher bitrates than 16/44.1 alone mean inaudible differences. In order to have audible differences something else is needed such as different mastering in which case it's not the bitrate, but the mastering causing the differences.

3) Placebo is common especially among people who don't understand digital audio properly and assume audible benefits for hi-res audio based on intuition. Another explanation is some people earn their living selling snake oil and benefit financially when this myth of hi-res consumer audio being better is upheld and spread.

4) Yes assuming those higher streams/files are from the master than 16/44.1 versions. This is because 16/44.1 is technically transparent for human ear. The sampling rate 44.1 kHz is just enough and bit depth is more than needed (13 bits would be just enough). Dither noise makes digital audio 100 % accurate (distortion free) within it's dynamic range. The dynamic range of 16 bit digital audio is technically over 90 dB and perceptually 90-120 dB depending of what kind of shaping if any is used for the dither noise. The needed dynamic range for even the most demanding listening scenarios is 70-80 dB (limited by the properties of human hearing and background noise levels real life listening environments) so it's clear 16 bits is easily enough for consumer audio. In studio, music production, a lot of safety margin is beneficial and hi-res has it's place, but in consumer audio massive safety margins are not needed anymore.

5) No. All it does is make ultrasonics possible, but humans don't hear those frequencies. Dogs, cats and bats do. Those animals claim improvements. Amplifiers and speakers are generally not designed for ultrasonics. Amplifiers can even produce distortions on those very high frequencies that are modulated on lower, audible frequencies. In this sense hi-res audio can be even worse than regular 16/44.1 that takes care sure ultrasonic content is not fed to the amplifier.

6) Yes, you don't need to re-purchase your favorite albums in 24/192 unless those are different (much better) masterings you want. Even in that case I'd downsample those 24/192 files to 16/48 files (48 = 192/4 meaning smooth downsampling even with simple algorithms) and make the files 6 times smaller without any loss of perceptual sound quality.

I cannot thank you enough for such a thorough and thoughtful response. I greatly appreciate this guidance and believe that I've potentially circumvented a rabbit hole of purchasing streaming plans, re-purchasing my favorite recordings, and otherwise believing the hype and placebo effect. I do understand that if I find a remaster of a favorite album, I could give it a go and see if this yields a better listening experience, but overall, re-buying the recordings shouldn't be necessary if I have them as ALAC 16/44.1 files.

I'm going to also try to read up and investigate the notion that FLAC is superior to ALAC. I've read in a few places that this is true, but again, I'm curious if there's an audible difference. I have not done any A/B testing of the same song in FLAC and ALAC, but I'm sure others have and I'm curious. As a Mac user, ALAC is the most convenient as I don't have to bother with another media player.