[audiokangaroo]

No it can't. If you are a Premium Member, the very highest quality that can be selected is AAC 256 kps. For anything uploaded by someone who isn't a premium member playback is restricted to either AAC 128 or Opus or Vorbis no higher than about 160 kbps, sample rate is typically 44.1kHz and never higher than 48kHz. YouTube doesn't support lossless playback, not even of 44/16.

With regard to the sample rate when uploading music videos, YouTube states: "44.1kHz recommended. Higher sample rates are accepted but not required (for example, 48kHz or 96kHz)". - This implies the playback sample rate of music videos will be 44.1kHz, although Youtube doesn't specifically say that. In any event, even with Premium Membership, the playback sample rate cannot be not be higher than 96kHz because that's the highest sample rate supported by the AAC format.

So, what is your experience, that you can clearly hear the difference between a 44.1kHz Opus 160 vs a 44.1kHz Opus 160? Even with the highest quality possible as a Premium Member and even if YouTube supports playback at the highest possible sample rate, the DSD master would have exactly the same sample rate as the 96/24 master!

My experience, from what you've just posted, is that if something says "DSD" and something else says 96/24, then some people will "clearly hear the difference" in these hi-res formats when in fact they are both exactly the same (low-res, lossy) format!!


So, you can "clearly hear" a sample rate difference when the sample rates are in fact exactly the same but the relatively huge difference from quite heavy lossy compression is "not very audible"?

G

A 44.1 KHz audio file from a tape or downsampled from a 192 KHz recording will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording. This is something that we have
to take into account here. This is the reason why even if Youtube is limited to 96 KHz we can hear adifference throu gh it.
I'm not sure about Youtube beeing limited to 96 KHz or not, as they don't communicate transparently on this matter. What is sure is that they have been focused on
greatly improving audio quality for a few years.
However, if you don't trust Youtube, you can experiment with nativedsd.com. They offer free high quality samples to listen to.

 

[bfreedma]

A 44.1 KHz audio file from a tape or downsampled from a 192 KHz recording will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording. This is somrthing that we have
to take into account here. This is the reason why even if Youtube is limited to 96 KHz we can hear adifference throu gh it.
I'm not sure about Youtube beeing limited to 96 KHz or not, as they don't communicate transparently on this matter. What is sure is that they have been focused on
greatly improving audio quality for a few years.
However, if you don't trust Youtube, you can experiment with nativedsd.com. They offer free high quality samples to listen to.

You really struggle to identify the difference between your individual subjective opinions and facts.

Have you ordered the book I recommended yet? It’s obvious that you desperately need to be better educated on the topics you are attempting to discuss.

 

[sander99]

A 44.1 KHz audio file from a tape ... will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording.

Do you mean recorded from an analog tape?
Some people may like it, but that would be because they like the distortions, colorations, and speed variations of the analog tape.
The 44.1 KHz 16 bit digitized version of the tape would sound exactly the same.

A 44.1 KHz audio file ... downsampled from a 192 KHz recording will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording.

In the studio the higher formats may have merits (to keep accumulated degradation by many many processing steps below audibility tresholds). But the end result can be delivered to the consumer in 44.1, 16.
Also recording in 192 KHz (with a higher corner frequency analog filter in the ADC) and downconverting to 44.1 would effectively be comparable to what an oversampling AD converter is actually doing in real time.

As you are kind of saying yourself: the 44.1 kHz 16 bit format retains all these (objective or subjectively preferred) qualities.

 

[Nickhasarrived]

The only reason I listen to 24/192 over 16/44.1 in most cases is because the song is often mastered differently, and you can tell when the artist has some fun in making objects move or adding reflections/reverberations in the 24/192 that the 16/44.1 doesn't have. Does that make one better than the other just from that? No each is a different listening experience.
In terms of actual quality of a song that is mastered identically in 24/192 vs 16/44.1, I thought I heard a difference, but I am nearly 100% sure I couldn't tell in blind testing, and it was a phycological thing. (As long as the dac was bit/sample matched, which is much more important than the sample rate imo)

 

[castleofargh]

A 44.1 KHz audio file from a tape or downsampled from a 192 KHz recording will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording. This is somrthing that we have
to take into account here. This is the reason why even if Youtube is limited to 96 KHz we can hear adifference throu gh it.
I'm not sure about Youtube beeing limited to 96 KHz or not, as they don't communicate transparently on this matter. What is sure is that they have been focused on
greatly improving audio quality for a few years.
However, if you don't trust Youtube, you can experiment with nativedsd.com. They offer free high quality samples to listen to.

Yet another example of you making up the reality you like as you go.

If we start with some marketing, or your subjective impression under sighted conditions, the very first action would be to list the possible causes and try to eliminate the non audible ones. Is it marketing bs? How can we verify? Am I feeling that the sound is better with dsd because I know it is dsd that's playing? Is it simply a different mastering of the same song? Am I using a playback system that introduces extra and audible changes to one of the formats? How can I verify all that? And until I have, what the F am I doing posting conclusions of distinct audible improvements, or claiming to know the cause on a forum?????

Same thing for vinyl sounding closer to the original instrument, same thing for the latest tape vs cd statement, and the many other fantasy baits you’ve thrown at us.

Proper diagnotic, testing, and some reliable source of information, would be the logical approach of someone interested in facts. Instead, you keep making statements about sound and the cause of sound differences that stand on thin air and are usually false.
The one piece of supporting evidence for all the crap you have posted, the one and only attempt on your part to demonstrate something, has been that farce about listening to the sound improvements of dsd on youtube.

 

[71 dB]

I read that Philips wanted tu use 14 bit for the CD format and that Sony advocated for 16 bit.
It was not only for dynamic but also for linearity reasons. 16 bit files are enhanced with a dithering process to improve linearity.
Did you actually experiment with 13 bit to hear how it sounds ?

Yes, there was discussion about CD format being 14 bit or 16 bit between Philips and Sony. If I have understood it correctly this was due to the difficulty at the time - four decades ago - to make 16 bit analog to digital and digital to analog converters, a problem that has since disappeared as digital audio technology has matured. Philips even used 14 bit DACs in their first CD players despite of the format having 16 bits. The two least significant bits were simply dropped.

The linearity of ADCs and DACs is one issue affecting the quality of digital audio. Dithering on the other hand is about making quantization process linear by randomizing the quantization error so that it become "transferred" to quantization noise leaving the quantized signal 100 % accurate and linear. In theory properly dithered quantized signals have zero error, zero distortion and zero non-linearity. They are just masked by the quantization (dither) noise. Without dithering quantization error correlates with the signal which means the signal itself is distorted and the result (granulation) sounds much worse than non-correlating dither noise. Dither can be used even to make ADCs and DACs suffering from linearity problems more linear! High level dither can be added before conversion and subtracted from the signal after conversion. However, nowadays converters are so good and linear that there is little need for this anymore. Fun fact: Recording a noisy microphone amp means quantization of "self-dithered" signal resulting in noisy, but potentially more linear result.

Yes, I have tested 13 bit audio, althou the amount of bits comes from calculation how much dynamic range is needed in consumer audio (about 80 dB). The only way to tell 13 bit audio from 16 bit audio is to listen to an extremely quiet part of a song and raising the volume up so that the 18 dB louder dither of 13 bit version becomes audible. Elsewhere it is impossible to tell them apart by listening. I'm not saying world should go to 13 bit. 16 bit works great for consumer audio and is enough with clear (safety) margin. 13 bit is just my view of the limit of what is enough in consumer audio when used optimally (the music uses all 13 bits of the dynamic range and preferably shaped dither is used).

 

[71 dB]

A 44.1 KHz audio file from a tape or downsampled from a 192 KHz recording will sound clearly better than a native 44.1 KHz recording.

Why? If you like the distortions introduced by analog tape that would explain why you think 44.1 kHz digital audio from analog tape would sound "better", but that doesn't explain why 44.1 kHz digital audio from 192 kHz recordings would sound better. If anything, 192 kHz recordings can be considered totally transparent meaning it doesn't matter if you do the 44.1 kHz recording natively or if it is downsampled from a 192 kHz recording.

This is something that we have to take into account here.

No, we don't because it doesn't make sense (see above).

 

[audiokangaroo]

Why? If you like the distortions introduced by analog tape that would explain why you think 44.1 kHz digital audio from analog tape would sound "better", but that doesn't explain why 44.1 kHz digital audio from 192 kHz recordings would sound better. If anything, 192 kHz recordings can be considered totally transparent meaning it doesn't matter if you do the 44.1 kHz recording natively or if it is downsampled from a 192 kHz recording.


No, we don't because it doesn't make sense (see above).

I think that tape and 192 KHz are a bit similar because they have both a vey wide frequency response.
We use to think that tape has a frequency response that is not as extended as what CD can provide. This is true if we consider frequency response at -3dB, but measuring this way does not make sense, because the useful amplitude ofvery high frequencies is generally under -40dB. If we measure the frequency response of a tape recoder around -50dB, we will have to consider that tape is indeed a high resolution format with a very extended frequency response.
As of tape recording producing harmonic distortion, It may be considered problematic, but I don't think that it can explain the fact tape sounds more natural that basic
digital audio.

 

[71 dB]

I think that tape and 192 KHz are a bit similar because they have both a very wide frequency response.

All that "very wide frequency response" gets band-limited when you make a 44.1 kHz version of it. How is that different from natively recording at 44.1 kHz? You get the same band-limited frequency response anyway!

We use to think that tape has a frequency response that is not as extended as what CD can provide.

Who we? I haven't though such a thing.

This is true if we consider frequency response at -3dB, but measuring this way does not make sense, because the useful amplitude of very high frequencies is generally under -40dB.

What does "useful amplitude" mean in this context?

If we measure the frequency response of a tape recorder around -50dB, we will have to consider that tape is indeed a high resolution format with a very extended frequency response.

Frequency-wise it might be somewhat "high resolution", but otherwise due to the distortions, noise, flutter and non-flat frequency response tape is NOT "high resolution".

As of tape recording producing harmonic distortion, It may be considered problematic, but I don't think that it can explain the fact tape sounds more natural that basic
digital audio.

How do you explain producing harmonic distortion makes something more "natural" than not producing harmonic distortion? My way of explaining this is that producing harmonic distortion the way tape does it makes the sound LESS natural, but MORE pleasing to ears that have gotten used to the distortion. So it is about confusion between more pleasing and more natural.

What you are do is you try to rationalize your subjective sonic preferences with trying to convince yourself and other about the superiority of analog sound because your ego doesn't allow you to admit to yourself you simply prefer LESS accurate and natural sound with distortion. There is nothing wrong with having subjective preferences. The problem is going against the science.

 

[audiokangaroo]

All that "very wide frequency response" gets band-limited when you make a 44.1 kHz version of it. How is that different from natively recording at 44.1 kHz? You get the same band-limited frequency response anyway!


Who we? I haven't though such a thing.


What does "useful amplitude" mean in this context?


Frequency-wise it might be somewhat "high resolution", but otherwise due to the distortions, noise, flutter and non-flat frequency response tape is NOT "high resolution".


How do you explain producing harmonic distortion makes something more "natural" than not producing harmonic distortion? My way of explaining this is that producing harmonic distortion the way tape does it makes the sound LESS natural, but MORE pleasing to ears that have gotten used to the distortion. So it is about confusion between more pleasing and more natural.

What you are do is you try to rationalize your subjective sonic preferences with trying to convince yourself and other about the superiority of analog sound because your ego doesn't allow you to admit to yourself you simply prefer LESS accurate and natural sound with distortion. There is nothing wrong with having subjective preferences. The problem is going against the science.

People who have actually listened directly to an acoustic instrument like a piano or drums know how they sound. When I say this kind of instrument does sound better recorded on tape or high sample rate digital, I don't mean that they sound more pleasing. I mean that they actually sound more like the real thing.
We have the same issue with sound stage. Tape and high sample rate digital produce a better sound stage than 44.1. Do you think that we could explain this with harmonic
distortion ?

 

[71 dB]

People who have actually listened directly to an acoustic instrument like a piano or drums know how they sound. When I say this kind of instrument does sound better recorded on tape or high sample rate digital, I don't mean that they sound more pleasing. I mean that they actually sound more like the real thing.
We have the same issue with sound stage. Tape and high sample rate digital produce a better sound stage than 44.1. Do you think that we could explain this with harmonic
distortion ?

Why do I keep talking with you? You are not changing your mind so this is waste of time.

(Yes, I have heard acoustics instruments live. To my ears 44.1 does fine job with it. )

I may need to leave this forum not to go insane because all of these analog/hi-rez clowns.

 

[audiokangaroo]

Why do I keep talking with you? You are not changing your mind so this is waste of time.

(Yes, I have heard acoustics instruments live. To my ears 44.1 does fine job with it. )

I may need to leave this forum not to go insane because all of these analog/hi-rez clowns.

Let's stop talking for a while. I Don't think I'm going to change my mind.
We would better listen to music and relax.

 

[71 dB]

We would better listen to music and relax.

I certainly agree with that!

 

[old tech]

I read that Philips wanted tu use 14 bit for the CD format and that Sony advocated for 16 bit.
It was not only for dynamic but also for linearity reasons. 16 bit files are enhanced with a dithering process to improve linearity.
Did you actually experiment with 13 bit to hear how it sounds ?

Well here is a comparison between dithered 8 bit and 16 bit. As you can hear, the only difference between the two bit depths is noise. After watching this, how could you not believe that 13 bits is more than enough to capture vinyl?

 

[old tech]

I think that tape and 192 KHz are a bit similar because they have both a vey wide frequency response.
We use to think that tape has a frequency response that is not as extended as what CD can provide. This is true if we consider frequency response at -3dB, but measuring this way does not make sense, because the useful amplitude ofvery high frequencies is generally under -40dB. If we measure the frequency response of a tape recoder around -50dB, we will have to consider that tape is indeed a high resolution format with a very extended frequency response.
As of tape recording producing harmonic distortion, It may be considered problematic, but I don't think that it can explain the fact tape sounds more natural that basic
digital audio.

I've even posted the references and results of a controlled test between analog tape and CD recordings of live concerts which demonstrate that a majority of music major subjects rated the CD recordings as higher quality and more natural sounding - on several different speakers and headphones. But just like all the other objective information provided to you by others you simply ignore it and continue rambling on with your anti-science theories. I'm not sure why others continue with the dialogue. As 71 DB observed, you seem to vain to accept that your individual preference is less fidelity and try to dress that up with made up assertions. Be comfortable in your own skin as their is nothing wrong with having subjective preferences.