Does anyone notice MORE "tape hiss" when you go beyond 24-bit/96kHz??

[RockStar2005]

It might just be coincidence, but does anyone else notice that there SEEMS to be more hiss on 24/192 (or 24/176.2) tracks vs like 24/96?? Is there any info or literature out there on the topic to support or disprove this? What are you thoughts and experiences on the topic? Please be specific. 
 
Thank You, 
 
RockStar2005

 

[KG Jag]

  It might just be coincidence, but does anyone else notice that there SEEMS to be more hiss on 24/192 (or 24/176.2) tracks vs like 24/96?? Is there any info or literature out there on the topic to support or disprove this? What are you thoughts and experiences on the topic? Please be specific. 
 
Thank You, 
 
RockStar2005

What recordings are you referencing?  Digital recording should have zero tape hiss, unless someone added it for giggles.  In the pre-digital era of the 50's (if not earlier for hi-fi recordings) and beyond, almost everything had tape hiss of some level.  Modern(ish) techniques and software have enabled those original recordings to "lose" much or all of that tape hiss--if so desired. Sometimes there is/was an audio price for doing so.

 

[RockStar2005]

Hey KG,

I'm referring to Hi-Res FLAC recordings from sites such as HD Tracks, Pono Music, and Super HiRez Acoustic Sounds. In particular, 24/192 or 24/176.2 tracks vs 24/96.

Thanks,

RockStar2005

 

[KG Jag]

Hey KG,

I'm referring to Hi-Res FLAC recordings from sites such as HD Tracks, Pono Music, and Super HiRez Acoustic Sounds. In particular, 24/192 or 24/176.2 tracks vs 24/96.

Thanks,

RockStar2005

OK but with what (e.g. magnetic tape) were the original recordings made?

 

[RockStar2005]

I couldn't say. I just wonder if anyone else is noticing what I SEEM to be observing, or if it's simply just a coincidence.


Thanks,

RockStar2005

 

[KG Jag]

I couldn't say. I just wonder if anyone else is noticing what I SEEM to be observing, or if it's simply just a coincidence.


Thanks,

RockStar2005

 
Better recordings/formats tend to reveal more of both the good and the bad that are in original track (unless the master or other version used has been "tweaked").
 
What you have described comes as no surprise to me, especially from (say) a recording taken from the master tapes (more so for hiss as you go to later generations).

 

[RockStar2005]

Hmmm. So you're saying the higher resolution recordings like 24/192 ARE more likely to have hiss than the 24/96 ones?

I should also mention that I downsample ALL my Hi-Res recordings to CD-Quality. But that shouldn't matter since we can't hear past CD-Quality anyway. But I know it's a fact that studio producers and engineers tend to either use better masters or else do a better job and put more attention into doing Hi-Res remasters vs CD or mp3 releases. So maybe they are doing even more on like 24/192 tracks than on 24/96?

Thanks,

RockStar2005

 

[KG Jag]

Mmm..there are several widely debated topics in your post. 
 
But first--I was speaking of professionally released music (not most boots)--not copies of stuff ripped and made at home.
 
Second--you'll find more than a little discussion about the actual source of numerous hi-res releases, including SACD's.  It would seem that from time to time "questionable" choices and "compromises" are made along with some shortcuts in the journey to a hi-res issue.
 
I am more than a little convinced that I can hear the differences between CD and superior audio formats--at in least in the cases of quality recording played back through quality equipment.  I am also convinced that the recording and mastering of those tracks is at least of equal importance.  Crap is still crap (sometimes worse for its now clearer warts with better formats) regardless of how hi-res its presentation.

 

[RockStar2005]

Yeah I know about it being widely debated, but I also believe more in scientific data and my own experiences over anything else. lol 
 
I've seen at least 2 different studies that essentially prove that we can't hear beyond CD-Quality. The studies clearly demonstrated that those who claimed they could were just guessing really. Also, I've read articles mentioning studies done that concluded that Hi-Res masters only tend to sound better b/c they have different (as in "better" lol) masters used on them than other releases did, or they are remastered in a more superior manner. I've listened to the same "improved Hi-Res" track in both 24/96 or 24/192 vs 16/44.1, and I cannot tell the difference. The only way of course to get your hands on those better recordings is to buy the Hi-Res version releases. 
 
Yes I'm only speaking about professionally-made music. Specifically, Hi-Res tracks downloaded from legitimate sites. 
 
Can you elaborate on the "questionable choice and compromises" part more?
 
The studies I'd read used quality equipment but in the end, the results only further supported the statements made that human beings can't hear beyond CD-Quality. The equipment I used to determine it myself is able to handle Hi-Res processing, and I myself could not hear a difference when the same master was used. At first when I was told this would be the case, I didn't want to believe it. It took me several weeks to come to terms with it, but eventually I could no longer argue against the obvious. If I'd even had noticed a TINY difference, I would never have started downsampling my Hi-Res tracks, but since I could not, doing so just made so much more sense. It saves me a ton of storage space to do so, and that is a good thing. 
 
Thanks, 
 
RockStar2005

 

[KG Jag]

The discussion of the "questionable choice and compromises" can be found SA-CD.net and elsewhere.  The issues are multiple, including using inferior quality/formatted masters, poor techniques and quality control--including screwing up the speed on at least one album and poorly done & horribly colored and/or dynamically compressed remasters.
 
My ears have been on the hunt for improved audio quality and muti-track (when stereo was part of that definition) music since the mid 1960's.  I agree that when properly done, CD quality audio can offer excellent music reproduction.  Unfortunately this is fairly (or more than fairly) rare.  Most CD's, even those not participating in the dynamic compression plague, as cranked out little MacDonald's hamburgers and usually sound like it.  I'm not a vinyl snob, but there are many digital recordings in the mass market that sound sterile, dry and even somewhat metalic.
 
At this stage of my life I am able to use high quality equipment (t most at least) to listen to my music.  My primary formats are vinyl and all flavors of physical discs.  I have been listening to many of these tracks for multiple decades.  My ears tell me that HDCD is superior to CD, and that upline formats like DVD-A, SACD and Blu-ray audio are better than HDCD on my equipment.  That said, I have CD's that sound better than a number of my SACD's.  I agree that what get plugged into the third format group is often a major factor in why they tend to sound better--and often offer 5.1 sound.  However, I also hear improved dynamics, imaging, clarity (especially in complicated or fast music), soundstage and extension that I don't get with even the best CD's.  I also find that if I listen to an entire album these factors tend to be more striking (with a quality recording/mastering).  In any case it works for my ears.  I'm sure that there are multiple factors that contribute to my improved listening experience--and more important enjoyment.  Yet I'm convinced that format is a part of that mix.  Even if its not, the quality of the music tends to be better.  Bottom line--that's what I'm after.

 

[RockStar2005]

I see. 
 
Well that's cool that you have great equipment and so much experience listening to all the variety of formats out there. I will agree about blu-ray sound........I own a pretty nice surround sound system (Denon 1612 Receiver and the Energy Take Classic 5.1 speaker system), and a Sony blu-ray player and Sony 40" Bravia HDTV. My system can handle anything I throw at it at pretty much any volume. I absolutely LOVE how blu-ray lossless quality formats such as DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD sound coming from my blu-ray movies. It completely crapS on the Dolby Digital lossy sound I get from Cable TV. I dislike it when blu-ray movies come with lossy audio (i.e. Goodfellas, Training Day, the Ocean's 11 trilogy, etc)....... they don't seem to do that anymore, but they should've never done it at all in the first place. Just feels like you're gettin' jipped. Not cool. But the vast majority are lossless so for the most part it's fine. I'm also not a fan of 7.1. I think 5.1 is plenty. But whatever. It gets converted to 5.1 on my system anyway. 
 
I believe DVD-A maxes out at 24/96, SACD at 2822.4kHz/1-bit DSD (not sure what that means but lol), and blu-ray audio at 24/192. My player can do UP TO 24/192, so SACD I don't think would work for me anyway, even if it was better, which from what I've read (including your post) isn't considered to be the case. 
 
For my equipment, I'm using the Sony Walkman A17 and my Sony MDR-1A headphones. Both are very well rated, and sound incredible. My Walkman has a strong enough built-in amp to make even Hi-Res recordings loud enough for me to enjoy w/o the need for an amp to be in the mix. The headphones being JUST sensitive enough contributes to that as well. I recently downloaded a Red Hot Chili Peppers song that was released on the Pono Music site as 24/192, "Higher Ground", which was a Stevie Wonder song they covered in 1989. I didn't delete the original 24/192 version after making a downsampled copy of it like I normally do, so I compared it to the downsampled (again, CD-Quality) version of the same recording, and compared the two side-by-side on the same equipment. The only difference I can say I really noticed was that at the downsampled CD-Quality level, esp at the part b/t 0:38-0:50, the guitar part seemed to be slightly more "louder but more shrieky" than the same part was on the 24/192 version. (I kept the volumes close but the 24/192 version had to be 2 notches higher to be comparable to the downsampled version). 
 
I'm not really sure what to make of this........meaning, I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing that the guitar part sounds that way. Or am I just imagining the difference?! Like, I liked that it was more controlled on the 24/192 version, but I liked that it was louder on the CD-Quality one. After a few more comparisons it became harder to tell the difference. If you or anyone on here happens to like that song enough to download it from Pono and give it a shot too (24/192 vs downsampled to CD-Quality version of itself), and tell me what you think, especially at that part, that would be cool. I should also mention that I used dbPoweramp to do the downsampling. 
 
Thanks, 
 
RockStar2005

 

[EllyJ]

I’ve been listening to a lot of remastered hi-res music from amazon music hd. From what I can hear is that different parts of the track will have differing amounts of hiss. Vocals normally have almost zero hiss, drums with cymbals have more, other instruments vary and quiet/dark sections have zero hiss. It seems it is only possible to filter/clean-up different sounds to varying degrees. It is almost like a sample with hissing has been used! I like to listen to 60s and 70s rock, i’m finding it very distracting. If I listen to something new recorded in hi-res I cannot hear this at all. I’m not an expert, or even have a good ear.

 

[KG Jag]

You can expect a certain level of tape hiss on any recording to magnetic tape--including all or virtually all of 60's and 70's rock. Modern technology has allowed processing that reduces tape hiss, but others will have to provide the specifics and more details.

 

[AxeMadman81]

I wanted to share with you my experience about "Tape Hiss"
I'm huge Deep Purple Fan, and I like to compare the different masterings of the same disc

I notice that AF Version of IN ROCK mastered by Steve Hoffman (it's not 24/96 but normal reedbook audio 44/16) has about 2db up the UK Cd version
RMS 12/12 VS RMS 14/14
In conclusion, I Notice the More you up the RMS (increase volume perception) the more you introduce HISS
Obviously,In this case like others 70 recordings, It's the original Analog master tape that had hiss (probably due to analog mixer desk)
However,UK Cd version of the track is more silent than AF Fidelity Steve Hoffman...

 

[Paul Mohr]

I personally haven't. I payed with high bit/sample files for a while and me personally I couldn't tell a difference in any of them. I came to the conclusion that any differences you may hear were probably do to it just being a really good master, transfer and sound engineer when the recording was done or re mastered. I have heard some bad high bit/sample files and I have heard some really good MP3's. As long is was a good recording to begin with and the transfer was done correctly it didn't seem to matter to me.

However I would not be shocked that you would hear something like that in a better recording, or on a better system. That is the downside to better more reveiling gear. It can make great recordings sound great but it can also make bad recordings sound really bad. Lower end gear can mask a lot of things and even the playing feild. Which is why it is still a good option for many people. As I got older, could afford better stuff and technology progressed I found myself not liking recording I used to love and changing my taste in music, or at least who produced the music. An example I like to use is when I was younger in the 80's my friends and I enjoyed listening to Dokken Tooth and Nail. We listened to it on cassette tape on our cheap kamart systems and in our cars. It sounded just fine. When I could afford better equipment, and then when CD's came out it was not as enjoyable. And now with the current set up I have and having heard other music it is almost unlistenable to me. Is it because I don't like that kind of music anymore? Nope, I still love 80's rock. The simple fact is that recording is crap and sounds like garbage and I can't enjoy it anymore because it sounds so bad compared to other more well done stuff.

I would say if you can hear hiss on something like that either someone screwed up when converting, they added it on purpose or they didn't bother pulling it out when they transferred it.

These are only my opinions though and nothing more. I am not a sound engineer.