[chef8489]

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.

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.

Lossless is lossless. Doesn't matter if alac, flac, and so on. Its the exact same information and will sound the same.

 

[skhan007]

Lossless is lossless. Doesn't matter if alac, flac, and so on. Its the exact same information and will sound the same.

Thank you!! In this one thread, I've learned a ton and greatly appreciate the responses to my questions.

It appears that my hobby just became exponentially simplified and exceedingly cost-effective. My set up will now entail: MacBook with my CD's imported as ALAC into my (soon to arrive) RME ADI-2 DAC/headphone amp, into headphones that are yet to be researched and purchased. I know the headphone topic is a rabbit hole, but I love research (it's what I do for a living), so looking forward that exploration.

 

[chef8489]

Thank you!! In this one thread, I've learned a ton and greatly appreciate the responses to my questions.

It appears that my hobby just became exponentially simplified and exceedingly cost-effective. My set up will now entail: MacBook with my CD's imported as ALAC into my (soon to arrive) RME ADI-2 DAC/headphone amp, into headphones that are yet to be researched and purchased. I know the headphone topic is a rabbit hole, but I love research (it's what I do for a living), so looking forward that exploration.

Yep headphones, amps, dacs, and other gear is a rabbit hole. Just don't fall down the cable rabbit hole. Digital cables are digital cables. As long as info gets there it will sound the same.

 

[skhan007]

Yep headphones, amps, days, and other gear is a rabbit hole. Just don't fall down the cable rabbit hole. Digital cables are digital cables. As long as info gets there it will sound the same.

I see in your footer, you've listed two of headphones I'm currently considering: The HD650/HD6xx and Audeze LCD2.

I will absolutely avoid the rabbit hole of cables. I've experienced and experimented in this realm with instrument cables for my guitars and tube amps. Other than capacitance in very long cables, no appreciable differences.

 

[chef8489]

I thought the lcd-2c blow the hd650 out of the water. Just more precise lows, more sub bass, fuller sound, and faster then the hd650.

 

[castleofargh]

My ears preferred the LCD2 by a good margin.
My neck preferred the HD650.
The neck won.

Conclusion, music is really experienced with the neck. Or maybe I'm not so good at drawing conclusions, IDK.

 

[sonitus mirus]

My ears preferred the LCD2 by a good margin.
My neck preferred the HD650.
The neck won.

Conclusion, music is really experienced with the neck. Or maybe I'm not so good at drawing conclusions, IDK.

That may be how the phrase "paean in the neck" originated.

 

[71 dB]

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.

There is no need to thank. I'm glad if I can help. FLAC and ALAC are both lossless formats meaning they have identical sound quality also identical to the original not data compressed file. Lossless means reducing redundancy so that the file size become smaller, but there is zero loss of information. ALAC is "FLAC for Mac users."

 

[Bozzunter]

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

There is one more thing I would like to be added to this recap about the "advantages" of high resolution and 24 bits... Since all that was explained in your post is so easily defensible on a scientific level (which does not mean lots of people refuse to believe it), streaming services and the likes claim high res has another fantastic advantage on audible frequencies: do be more detailed on audible frequencies. More samples, more resolution, better quality.

It has widely been debunked in this forum, but if someone could pop in and re-post a simple explanation, it would be fantastic.

By the way, a few days ago I was reading the forum dedicated to the fantastic Audeze LCD i4. In order to explain why a very expensive DAP/DAC/Amplifier is better than the DAC provided by Audeze itself through a Lightning cable, someone said that something like "the power of the first solution is better than what's provided by the latter". Better, I kid you not. You couldn't even say that delusions come cheap, because with audio they don't.

 

[71 dB]

There is one more thing I would like to be added to this recap about the "advantages" of high resolution and 24 bits... Since all that was explained in your post is so easily defensible on a scientific level (which does not mean lots of people refuse to believe it), streaming services and the likes claim high res has another fantastic advantage on audible frequencies: do be more detailed on audible frequencies. More samples, more resolution, better quality.

It has widely been debunked in this forum, but if someone could pop in and re-post a simple explanation, it would be fantastic.

I'm afraid there just isn't a simple explanation for someone who doesn't understand digital audio well. A lot of this goes against intuition and to break the misleading intuition (more is better), one has to understand there things well. These things are learnable for just about anyone (it helps if you don't suck at math), but most people just don't see the trouble of learning this stuff.

At it's simplest the explanation can be broken into pieces like this:

1. Even in most demanding music listening scenarios no more than 80 dB of dynamic range and frequency range up to 20 kHz is needed. This comes from the properties and limits of human hearing and it includes "golden ears." Pain threshold, comfortable/safe listening levels and listening environment background noise play a role in this.

2. Mathematically digital audio provides 100 % fidelity within the limits set by sampling frequency and bit depth. This comes from Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory and the use of Dither noise.

3. Sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz gives theoretical bandwidth of 22.05 kHz and a practical bandwidth of 20 kHz.

4. The theoretical dynamic range given by 16 bits is 98 dB without dither. Dither increases noise level a little bit, but also makes the noise more comfortable because granulation (correlation with the signal) is gone. However, this happens on levels too low to be heard at any practical listening levels. Using shaped dither the noise can be made perceptually even quieter (if inaudible is not quiet enough) so that the perceptual dynamic range of 16 bit, 44.1 kHz digital audio can be even 110-120 dB!

5. Based on all of the above, 16 bit, 44.1 kHz digital audio is enough of bandwidth and dynamic range. Within this frame the fidelity is 100 % (in practice the quality of ADC and DAC etc. limit the quality, but this is the same for hi-res audio also, just as an even more limiting way).

6. Hi-res audio doesn't increase fidelity within the ranges of human hearing, because it's already theoretically 100 % with 16 bit, 44.1 kHz. Hi-res digital audio increases fidelity outside human hearing, if even that. Potentially Hi-res digital audio can even reduce fidelity if ultrasonic signal cause distortion on audible frequencies because some audio gear isn't designed for those frequencies.

7. Streaming services have an business incentive to milk audiophools offering "hi-res sound" at higher price. Placebo effect together with theoretical ignorance takes care of making these audiophools believe they are getting something extra for their money. My incentives to educate people here are the feel of moral responsibility to share understanding of something I believe I have (less selfish reason) and also to feel my life and existence matters (more selfish reason).

 

[skhan007]

The above is absolutely spot-on. While I'm not a physicist, audiologist, or otherwise an expert in sound science, I have read the research referenced by Nyquist's work and Lavry's white paper. This and the post above have been summarized quite succinctly in this article:

https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/t...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

I've been doing my own A/B testing listening to a song in 16/44.1 vs higher sampling rates (24/96, 24/192, DSD, etc.) and to my ears, hear only volume change or possibly artifacts from remastering, but no appreciable improvement from FLAC/ALAC to hi-res. It's eye-opening and I absolutely appreciate the avoidance of the rabbit hole and potential endless spending that could ensue otherwise chasing sonic attributes that are not detectable by the human ear.

This quote: "In theory, rates around 44.1kHz or 48kHz should be a near-perfect for recording and playing back music. Unless the Nyquist Theorem is ever disproved, it stands that any increase in sample rates cannot increase fidelity within the audible spectrum. At all. Extra data points yield no improvement."

Also, this quote: "...mathematical proof that showed any sound wave could be perfectly re-created so long as it was limited in bandwidth and sampled at a rate more than twice its own frequency."

So, if the upper limit of the human ear's perception is 20 kHz, arriving at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz is more than adequate. Then there's the topic of intermodulation distortion that can happen with unnecessarily high sample rates. While I haven't heard this distortion with my own ears, the science makes sense.

 

[bigshot]

There is an article in my sig file called CD sound is all you need that is pretty useful.

 

[theaudiologist1]

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.

FLAC is superior because it's libre and not proprietary to apple.

 

[theaudiologist1]

The above is absolutely spot-on. While I'm not a physicist, audiologist, or otherwise an expert in sound science, I have read the research referenced by Nyquist's work and Lavry's white paper. This and the post above have been summarized quite succinctly in this article:

https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/t...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

I've been doing my own A/B testing listening to a song in 16/44.1 vs higher sampling rates (24/96, 24/192, DSD, etc.) and to my ears, hear only volume change or possibly artifacts from remastering, but no appreciable improvement from FLAC/ALAC to hi-res. It's eye-opening and I absolutely appreciate the avoidance of the rabbit hole and potential endless spending that could ensue otherwise chasing sonic attributes that are not detectable by the human ear.

This quote: "In theory, rates around 44.1kHz or 48kHz should be a near-perfect for recording and playing back music. Unless the Nyquist Theorem is ever disproved, it stands that any increase in sample rates cannot increase fidelity within the audible spectrum. At all. Extra data points yield no improvement."

Also, this quote: "...mathematical proof that showed any sound wave could be perfectly re-created so long as it was limited in bandwidth and sampled at a rate more than twice its own frequency."

So, if the upper limit of the human ear's perception is 20 kHz, arriving at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz is more than adequate. Then there's the topic of intermodulation distortion that can happen with unnecessarily high sample rates. While I haven't heard this distortion with my own ears, the science makes sense.

Yeah 192kHz+ DOES cause distortion. 96kHz is already overkill.

 

[Slaphead]

FLAC is superior because it's libre and not proprietary to apple.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic here, but in the context of this thread FLAC and ALAC perform identically in terms of sonics - they are after all both lossless codecs.

Maybe from a technical aspect one or other of them might have a small advantage here and the other there, but being proprietary does not make a codec inferior in terms of sound quality.

In any event the argument is moot as Apple made ALAC open source and royalty free almost ten years ago.