[CiptoH]

The very highest resolution recordings can be contained in 16/44, the majority of consumers aren’t interested in resolution that is inaudible and beyond that of the recordings themselves anyway.

Have you ever heard of the DVD-Audio format (DVD-A) which has a PCM 24-bit 96KHz specification ?
"DVD-Audio is 24-bit, with a sampling rate of 96 kHz"
https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/definition/DVD-Audio

Have you ever heard of PCM 24-bit 768KHz ?

 

[CiptoH]

16bit has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96dB but that’s excluding noise-shaped dither which increases it perceptually to about 120dB.

Bits and Dynamic Range​

If you are doing a linear stair-step digitization of an analog waveform, the number of bits used in the sampling determines the maximum dynamic range you can faithfully represent with the sampling.

For example, an 8-bit sample can give you 256 possible values, so if the softest sound you sample is represented by a 1, then the loudest sound you can represent is a 256. The maximum range of amplitudes is then 256, and since the power is proportional to the amplitude squared, the power range is 256 squared or 1 to 65,536 in power. This corresponds to a dynamic range of 48 decibels whereas the dynamic range of an orchestra is about 40 to 100 dB, or 60 dB. By similar calculation, a 12 bit digitization can give you a dynamic range of 72 dB and 16 bits can give you 96 dB of dynamic range.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Audio/digit.html

 

[gregorio]

If you are doing a linear stair-step digitization of an analog waveform, the number of bits used in the sampling determines the maximum dynamic range you can faithfully represent with the sampling.

Again, if you ignore noise-shaped dither then CD does have a dynamic range of 96dB but then 1bit DSD has a dynamic range of only 6dB. You’re not seriously arguing that are you?

If you include noise-shaped dither then both CD and SACD perceptually offer about 120dB dynamic range.

G

 

[Sampajanna]

every single dac I have had in my system sounds different except Chifi, which all sound the same. Same for friends and dealrers I visit. Asde, from spealers/headphones, a dac is the center of a digital rig. I would suggest trying many to find the one you like. The measurement crowd acts like we are dealing with medical science or military logistics. This is all money we have willingly set aside for pleasure, and pleasure is therefore the only true measure. Electronic measurements do not equal values, unless your value is thus, but that is a choice each one of us should have on our own. In the Letters to the Editor of the Sept22 issue of Sterephile JA answers a criticism from that crowd brilliantly. Definitely worth reading. He articulates this better than I can, suggesting that each of us should be free to spend how we like, esepcially in something as recreational as audio. This is not so serious. It‘s about enjoying music not saving lives.

The issue with the measurement crowd is that they cannot understand this simple, yet very rational truth that measurements do not equate to values. A measures better than B in SINAD is a fact. A is therefore mroe valuable than B is not a fact; it is a value. Even if you can prove that A is more accurately reproudcing the recording that doesnt make it more valuable unless accuracy is what is valued. And you cannot measure my pleasure or value—they are personal. Plenty of guys like warm, gushy “inaccurate” sound. That is what brings them pleasure and all the power too them. I am not trying to listen to gear or geek out on gear. I love music. Music is why I am here. I follow my ears.

Aside from pleasure, I have grown in my listening skills. I can hear more than when I started, which goes to show that listening critically is trained. Since I have grown in my listening skills, I must assume that there are still things I do not know or hear and therefore trust more experienced listeners that are friends, especially when they have similar tastes. Understanding engineering doesnt make you a good listener critically or for pleasure any more than a neurologist who understands the brain’s connection to his fingers cannot therefore operate his fingers with greater dexterity as a result of what he knows.

The analogy I always use for the guys posting 17,000 times in a row on this and other forums is like someone bursting into a restaurant and ruining your meal by suggesting that you should have ordered something else since it is the same “chemistry” and the cheap Chinese restaurant down the road has the same flavors and “I bet you couldn’t taste the difference blind.” Obviously, such people dont take pleasure in eating out, just as these dudes need to sit back and enjoy some music. I suggest the new Moon cycle albums by the Tedeschi Trucks Band….

 

[Luke Skywalker]

I didn’t really believe it until today when I got an iFi Gryphon. I went from kind of not liking my Monarch Mk2 (was thinking of selling) to being astounded. Was using the Q15, Fiio UTWS5, and a few others

 

[gregorio]

The issue with the measurement crowd is that they cannot understand this simple, yet very rational truth that measurements do not equate to values.

Of course the measurement crowd (or in fact anyone else who has a basic understanding of digital audio) cannot understand that “simple, yet very rational truth” because while it is very simple, it’s not even slightly rational and it certainly isn’t the truth! Digital audio is itself a series of measurements, each representing an amplitude value. What do you think the bits in each sample represent?

A measures better than B in SINAD is a fact. A is therefore mroe valuable than B is not a fact; it is a value.

Even if A measures better than B in SINAD, that doesn’t make A audibly any better than B, assuming the distortion and noise are below audibility, unless you just like better (but inaudible) specs/numbers.

Even if you can prove that A is more accurately reproudcing the recording that doesnt make it more valuable unless accuracy is what is valued.

Isn’t the seeking of high fidelity the definition of an audiophile? Of course, no one is forcing you to be an audiophile and it’s entirely up to you if you personally value lower fidelity over high fidelity but then you should stay away from digital audio, as audibly perfect fidelity is the whole point of how and why it was invented. You’d be better off with old wax cylinders or consumer cassette tapes.

And you cannot measure my pleasure or value—they are personal.

True, we can’t measure your pleasure. It is possible you personally find low fidelity more pleasurable than high fidelity but that puts you in a very tiny minority.

I love music. Music is why I am here. I follow my ears.

If audiophiles really did “follow their ears”, then virtually all of the false marketing and audiophile snake oil would simply not exist. Unfortunately though, audiophiles almost always follow their perception instead of their ears and then falsely claim they’re following their ears.

I must assume that there are still things I do not know or hear and therefore trust more experienced listeners that are friends, especially when they have similar tastes. Understanding engineering doesnt make you a good listener critically or for pleasure ...

That depends on what sort of engineer you are. A professionally trained music or sound engineer for example DOES make you “a good listener critically” because you undergo years of formal listening skills training and if you’re not a particularly good critical listener then you won’t be employable.

G

 

[CiptoH]

The very highest resolution recordings can be contained in 16/44

The 16-bit 44.1KHz recording is just a downgraded version of the original 24-bit studio-master recording, in which there has been a decrease in resolution and dynamics range.
There are original 24-bit studio-master recordings available to consumers (especially for the most demanding audiophiles).

 

[Sampajanna]

We will have to agree to disagree, my friend. I wish you happy listening. yay Topping and praise the Lord Amir!

 

[gregorio]

The 16-bit 44.1KHz recording is just a downgraded version of the original 24-bit studio-master recording, in which there has been a decrease in resolution and dynamics range.

No, 16/44 is not a downgraded version, there is not a decrease in resolution nor a decrease in dynamic range. Again, the dynamic range of studio masters almost never exceeds 60dB, which is way within the capabilities of 16bit, as you yourself have quoted! However, the dynamic range of a 16/44 version maybe reduced if the client (EG. Record label) requests additional compression to be applied.

Additionally, studio mixing and mastering never is and never has been done at 24bit. In the early days of digital mixing it was typically done at 32bit float, then 56bit fixed was standard and for the last dozen years or so, it’s done at 64bit float. So both 24bit and 16bit recordings are a reduction of bits from the mix or master but again, this removal of bits is completely inaudible.

We will have to agree to disagree, my friend.

Sure, you are entirely free to believe whatever you choose. However, if you choose to disagree with the actual facts, then you obviously cannot call that the “very rational truth” because it’s the opposite.

I wish you happy listening. yay Topping and praise the Lord Amir!

I do have happy listening but it has absolutely nothing to do with either Topping or Amir.

I wish you happy listening too, yay the lords of audiophile marketing and snake oil!

G

 

[CiptoH]

But that IS false marketing! The DSD format has the same dynamic range as CD (approx 120dB) and much less than 24bit.

DSD has better resolution than CD !
DSD resolution is not much less than 24-bit, DSD resolution is around 24-bit.
No false marketing.

Read the quote From What HI-FI :

Is DSD hi-res?

"So how high resolution is a DSD recording? There’s no exact way of striking equivalence between PCM and DSD but it’s around the same as 24-bit/88.2kHz PCM."

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/what-dsd-audio-how-it-works-where-to-download-files-and-more

 

[gregorio]

Read the quote From What HI-FI :

Why don’t you read the article that you yourself are quoting?!

“In terms of dynamic range, DSD is claimed to be around 120dB in the audible frequency range. In comparison, CD measures around 96dB, and 24-bit/192kHz recordings have a theoretical maximum of around 144dB.
Although the bigger numbers are more impressive, even the range of CD is considered more than enough to cope with any recording.”

Again, 96dB is the figure for CD without noise-shaped dither, it’s about 120dB with noise-shaped dither but even without, it would still be way more than required for any recording. And of course 24bit (144dB dynamic range) is way more than the dynamic range of either DSD or CD.

G

 

[Sampajanna]

I am happy you are enjoying music, truly I am. I mean that.

“The facts” is exactly where we disagree. I dont think we have them, not by a long shot. To me, Lord Amir is another snake oil pusher—the worst kind, as he is condescending, certain, proud and speaks with authority. Your posts have the same air, which is why I assumed you were a follower. Sorry for that.

Id rather buy Mpingo disks and stick them all over my walls than follow his recipe for audio success. In fact, some of the best rooms I have ever heard have Shun Mook Mpingo stand thingies in them…

 

[CiptoH]

No, 16/44 is not a downgraded version, there is not a decrease in resolution nor a decrease in dynamic range.

When converting from 24 bit to 16 bit, there may be truncation or omission of low-level bits of information from the digital audio data.
if any sound information is truncated or missing, it means that the resolution has decreased.
To be sure, the converted 16-bit file is already different from the original 24-bit studio-master file, and this is not something the most demanding audiophile wants for the highest sound quality.

So both 24bit and 16bit recordings are a reduction of bits from the mix or master but again, this removal of bits is completely inaudible.

If you can't hear the difference in sound between 16-bit 44.1KHz vs 24-bit 96KHz studio-master recordings, this doesn't mean all humans can't hear the difference in sound either.

 

[gregorio]

“The facts” is exactly where we disagree. I dont think we have them, not by a long shot.

The facts were independently proven about 75 years ago, have never been disproven and if they were wrong, none of today’s digital devices would work.

To me, Lord Amir is another snake oil.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with “Lord Amir”, he wasn’t even born then!

In fact, some of the best rooms I have ever heard have Shun Mook Mpingo stand thingies in them…

None of the best rooms I’ve ever heard have Shun Mook Mpingo “stand thingies” in them and I’ve been lucky enough to work in some of the world’s best listening rooms.

G

 

[CiptoH]

Why don’t you read the article that you yourself are quoting?!

“In terms of dynamic range, DSD is claimed to be around 120dB in the audible frequency range. In comparison, CD measures around 96dB, and 24-bit/192kHz recordings have a theoretical maximum of around 144dB.
Although the bigger numbers are more impressive, even the range of CD is considered more than enough to cope with any recording.”

Again, 96dB is the figure for CD without noise-shaped dither, it’s about 120dB with noise-shaped dither but even without, it would still be way more than required for any recording. And of course 24bit (144dB dynamic range) is way more than the dynamic range of either DSD or CD.

G

And don't forget to mention, DSD still has a higher resolution than CD