Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz

[71 dB]

If an double bass in a perfect treated recording room has the highest quality and seen as the reference, high fidelity means getting as close to this sound as possible. In that way, an orchestra has very low fidelity in terms of single instruments.

This statement is pretty crazy. Double bass is an instrument descendant of bass violin originating from the 15th century. Double bass continued developing before the 20th century, time when treated recording rooms didn't exist anywhere, before there was technology to record anything. How does it make sense to say an instrument that was developing hundreds of years before the era of recorded music and treated recording rooms has the highest fidelity in treated recording rooms and low fidelity in concert halls where it was developped for?

You can make a claim that treated recording rooms have made it possible to create new genres of music and new sonic aesthetics, but this leads to the core of this all: You have your preference of how double bass should sound. Please don't push your own preferences as universal facts.

 

[gregorio]

higher quality means higher fidelity but in terms of the actual sound, there is no highger fidelity than being actually there.

Yes there is, because “being actually there” is just one specific location and never (as far as I can think) in the case of a large acoustic ensemble the location that presents the highest fidelity. With a recording on the other hand “being actually there” can mean several/many different locations at the same time, including the locations with the highest fidelity.

If a double bass in a perfect treated recording room has the highest quality and seen as the reference, high fidelity means getting as close to this sound as possible.

But a double bass in a perfect recording room is NOT “seen as the reference” for anything, it’s not even necessarily seen as the reference for that specific double bass in that specific room (with no other instruments), because just the variation of the musician’s performance from take to take is significant, and it most definitely is not seen as the reference for an entire orchestra!

In that way, an orchestra has very low fidelity in terms of single instruments.

No it does not, the fidelity can be as high as we want. We can (and do) specifically close mic certain single instruments in an orchestra, depending on the piece and instruments in question, and achieve the highest fidelity possible of single instruments. Although with some instruments we do not want very high fidelity, what we want is how the musician intends it to ideally sound to an audience. Lastly and most obviously, the fidelity of an orchestra is in terms of that orchestra (performing that piece, in that venue, at that time), not in terms of a single instrument. Again, fidelity is the faithfulness of the recording or reproduction to the musical event/s (IE. How closely does the output match the input). It is NOT how you feel an instrument should sound or even how that instrument will actually sound in a different context (say unaccompanied, in a different ensemble or in a different room). Fidelity is not subjective!

G

 

[bigshot]

That is why i said that Quality is the better word. In terms of playback, higher quality means higher fidelity but in terms of the actual sound, there is no highger fidelity than being actually there.

Quality and fidelity are two different things actually. Fidelity is how close a reproduced signal is to the original signal. That’s an objective thing. Quality is how good something sounds to a listener, and that is a subjective thing. For instance, when a sound engineer mixes a multitrack master to a stereo track, he is optimizing and balancing the sound in a way that might be quite different from how it originally sound. He is organizing the sound to improve the quality of how it sounds with no regard to the fidelity to the original signal.

In general, with home audio equipment you are looking for fidelity. You don’t want an amp to color the sound. You want it to produce the sound that is on the CD. It’s calibrated to a baseline of fidelity. When you apply tone controls, EQ or signal processing to make music sound better than just what is on the CD, you’re improving the sound quality. It’s a subjective judgement and choice, not a calibration to a baseline.

 

[Vamp898]

Yes there is, because “being actually there” is just one specific location and never (as far as I can think) in the case of a large acoustic ensemble the location that presents the highest fidelity. With a recording on the other hand “being actually there” can mean several/many different locations at the same time, including the locations with the highest fidelity.

What is the location with the highest fidelity? What original are they faithful too? They are the original.

But a double bass in a perfect recording room is NOT “seen as the reference” for anything, it’s not even necessarily seen as the reference for that specific double bass in that specific room (with no other instruments), because just the variation of the musician’s performance from take to take is significant, and it most definitely is not seen as the reference for an entire orchestra!

I never said it is seen as an reference for an entire orchestra. I said its an reference on how this Double Bass should sound. And this is something that is defined by humans.

Someone (mostly the company who makes the double bass) has an intention on how this double bass should sound. They have to test and verify, that it sounds correct. They can only verify that, if they have a reference on how it should sound.

_This_ is how the double bass should sound.

Because an Orchestra is an ensemble of many things, you can not archive High Fidelity of the Double Bass as it has to sound good in the overall thing. So at this point, a new original is created, the performance. A new reference is created.

But there is no fidelity here, because you are listening to the original. You can not be faithful to an original when you are the original.

And the Instruments are not Faithful to their own reference, which is, as you stated correctly, wanted. They are not striving for highest fidelity in terms of reproducing the single instrument sound. They are creating a new reference that something can be faithful too.

No it does not, the fidelity can be as high as we want. We can (and do) specifically close mic certain single instruments in an orchestra, depending on the piece and instruments in question, and achieve the highest fidelity possible of single instruments. Although with some instruments we do not want very high fidelity, what we want is how the musician intends it to ideally sound to an audience. Lastly and most obviously, the fidelity of an orchestra is in terms of that orchestra (performing that piece, in that venue, at that time), not in terms of a single instrument. Again, fidelity is the faithfulness of the recording or reproduction to the musical event/s (IE. How closely does the output match the input). It is NOT how you feel an instrument should sound or even how that instrument will actually sound in a different context (say unaccompanied, in a different ensemble or in a different room). Fidelity is not subjective!

G

As you said yourself, Fidelity means being faithful to the original. I never said something different, i even said 2 times, that fidelity is not the right word and i mean quality.

So i make it clear once and for all to prevent you from explaining it to me 3 more times

"I meant sound Quality, not Fidelity"

And yes. When you want high fidelity (i even said that in my last post) you have to reproduce all the distortions and the noise faithfully. And that was my critic in the first place.

You call this noise wanted, that is very subjective. I do not want to hear coughing people, footsteps and distortion. That is an subjective opinion, absolutely right. I do not strive for High Fidelity in terms of classical recordings.

And hence, i believe, my terms stay correct. If you want highest quality (Least Distortion and Noise) with an high fidelity in terms of instrument reproduction, an high fidelity classical recording is not giving you that. Distortion and Noise are part of the experience. Its wanted by some, not by me.

I've been to more than enough live concerts and i think most, but not all, will agree, going live is an experience and not an sound quality enjoyment.

You enjoy the sound quality with an professional live recording (that usually tries to not capture the noise and distortion as they sacrifice fidelity for the sake of quality) or with the studio album. You do not go into an concert hall to enjoy sound quality, its all about experience and performance. And that can't be reproduced as you need more than sound to do this.

I've even been to classical concerts where i had to wear earplugs as it was just too loud and no longer enjoyable (actually most of them). I did enjoy it with earplugs, but of course, wearing earplugs, it was no experience that i connect with the term quality. And of course, i wear earplugs on every normal concert.

 

[bigshot]

A lot of people think that room acoustics are “bad” and should be eliminated, but these sound envelopes are what make music sound like it’s occupying space. It’s no less important than the musical instruments, and reproducing the room acoustics is an important part of the job with classical music.

I have no idea why you need earplugs at classical concerts. The sound levels may be uncomfortably high if you stand right in front of the brass section, but from the audience, levels should be fine. I’ve attended loud Wagner operas and they never got that loud. Do you have much experience with classical music?

 

[Vamp898]

A lot of people think that room acoustics are “bad” and should be eliminated, but these sound envelopes are what make music sound like it’s occupying space. It’s no less important than the musical instruments, and reproducing the room acoustics is an important part of the job with classical music.

I have no idea why you need earplugs at classical concerts. The sound levels may be uncomfortably high if you stand right in front of the brass section, but from the audience, levels should be fine. I’ve attended loud Wagner operas and they never got that loud. Do you have much experience with classical music?

I maybe be a bit overly sensitive to noise, i am admitting that. That is, obviously, an contributing factor.

And yes, i do agree, some room is needed. Unless its Metal, you usually don't want a room less sound.

And i totally get why people love concert halls, it is a unique and special sound. I attended concerts in churches and they sounded awesome too.

But i would never use them as reference when testing IEM or Headphones to check their sound quality. I listen to them for enjoyment only

 

[bigshot]

Try to accurately reproduce hall ambience in a mix. It isn’t as easy as you might think. It requires a strategy all its own.

Fidelity involves both the sound and the sound around the sound. When you mike a piano, the goal isn’t to just get a dry recording of the strings and hammers alone.

In fact, ambient sound fields are the future of high end audio. Fidelity has been accomplished. Quality is the trick now. And that starts with reproducing the ambience with a high degree of fidelity.

 

[gregorio]

What is the location with the highest fidelity? What original are they faithful too?

The original “they are faithful to”, is the actual sound waves that were produced and the location with the highest fidelity depends on the fidelity of what. If it’s the fidelity of an individual instrument within an orchestra then the location with highest fidelity is very close to that instrument. If it’s the fidelity of the resultant reflections/reverb then the location with the highest fidelity is far from the instrument/s and closer to the reflecting surfaces (walls and ceiling).

I never said it is seen as a reference for an entire orchestra. I said it’s a reference on how this Double Bass should sound.

Again, that is not the reference for “how this double bass will sound” because “this double bass” will sound different as part of an orchestra than it will on it’s own, due to the obvious fact that in an orchestra “this double bass” will not point directly at the audience and will be surrounded by other musicians/instruments which all have absorption coefficients. However, how is this supposed reference even relevant, to either your definition sound quality or fidelity?

I do not strive for High Fidelity in terms of classical recordings.

Then you’re pretty much on your own on that one and therefore making a sweeping generalisation based on that is entirely fallacious/erroneous!

If you want highest quality (Least Distortion and Noise) with an high fidelity in terms of instrument reproduction, an high fidelity classical recording is not giving you that.

I have no idea how you can define “highest quality” as “least distortion or noise”, to virtually everyone else that would be the definition of extremely poor and entirely unacceptable quality! As you rightly stated, there is always some distortion and noise, for example the distortion and noise caused by reflections and reverb. Neither high fidelity nor high quality is the “least distortion or noise”, in the case of high fidelity it (again) is exactly the same amount of distortion and noise of the original musical event/s, IE. No additional distortion or noise AND no removal/reduction of distortion or noise!

It is perfectly true that commercial orchestral mixes/masters do not attempt to achieve perfect fidelity, we deliberately sacrifice some fidelity in preference to a subjective determination of how it would be ideally perceived by a hypothetical audience member. However, the point is that this occurs with all commercial music recordings but the fidelity of classical recordings is sacrificed less and typically, massively less than with any popular music genre, which is the exact opposite of your (false) assertion!

The fidelity sacrifice in orchestral recordings is typically a few dB of balance and/or EQ and a small amount of compression that is both very clean and barely noticeable. The sacrifice in fidelity of popular genres is typically huge increases in noise and distortion: Very large balance and EQ changes, the deliberate addition of many dB of analogue distortion as well as many dB of typically noisy/distorted “vintage” compression, artificial reverb/reflections, various other processes/distortions and typically various changes to the pitch/intonation and numerous edits of the timing. Indeed, it’s not uncommon that the finished mix/master is barely even recognisable from the original musical event/s! How on earth is ANY of this, let alone all of it, higher fidelity than classical recordings?!

G

 

[Diet Kokaine]

All my files are local, and yes.... There is a significant difference in 16 and 24 bit files.
Resolution/clarity is readily apparent,
24/96 and above sound the best, with DSD being the most transparent.

 

[71 dB]

All my files are local, and yes.... There is a significant difference in 16 and 24 bit files.
Resolution/clarity is readily apparent,
24/96 and above sound the best, with DSD being the most transparent.

This is disinformation. Sorry. If you understood and knew digital audio, you would know this. 16/44.1 is totally transparent for human ears:

- 16 bit is transparent, because the noise floor is low enough in practical listening. Only gain riding can expose the noise floor.
- Sampling frequencies above 44.1/48 kHz only extend possible bandwidth above 20 kHz, frequencies nobody can hear.
- DSD contains (luckily not audible) distortion due to in-proper dithering making it theoretically less transparent.

24 bit belongs to studios/music production. It allows flexibility and safety margins in regards of dynamic range. Even in studios 20 bits is probably enough, but 24 bit it is. Higher sampling rates have their special use for example recording bats emitting ultrasonics. Or recording ultrasonics and slowing them down to audible range to be used as sound effects in movies, music etc. Music consumers don't need more than about 13 bits of dynamic range (that's about 20 dB more than vinyl) and 44.1 kHz. Matured digital technology makes it possible to make this transparent for human ears. CD quality offers 3 more bits of dynamic range than that. Overkill, but it is what it is.

So why do you claim hi-res is (significantly!) better? Most probably due to ignorance of digital audio. You just ASSUME bigger numbers must mean better sound. You just don't know what these numbers mean in practise? You don't know the difference of 16 bit and 24 bit is noise so quiet nobody can ever hear without gain riding trickery? You don't know apart from that, the fidelity of 16 bit and 24 bit is exactly same? Is that it? Placebo effect? Confirmation bias? Another explanation is different masters. Snake oil sellers want ignorant people go fall into their scam. This is sound science forum and marketing BS doesn't fly here.

DSD was originally developed for archival format, because it is very immune to bit errors. Using it to milk audiophools is an afterthought. Sound quality comes producing, mixing and mastering well. Music formats don't really matter. Even high bitrate Lossy format can offer near transparent sound. People who realise this notice it is true. It is liberating. You don't need the highest bitrate PCM or DSD to enjoy music. CD quality is already transparent. That is a very good thing! That's the greatness of digital audio.

 

[castleofargh]

Off topic

All my files are local

Anytime I see or hear local, I think, "we're a local shop for local people" from the League of gentlemen.

 

[bigshot]

All my files are local, and yes.... There is a significant difference in 16 and 24 bit files.
Resolution/clarity is readily apparent,
24/96 and above sound the best, with DSD being the most transparent.

Bit rate isn’t resolution. That’s a common misconception. See the article linked in my sig on this topic.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

You guys can say whatever you want. The proof is in the pudding.. I hear what I hear.

People that are streaming music on lower quality distorted setups might not be able to tell the difference between bit rates, but on my speaker setup (and IEM/portable rig) the difference is clear as day.

 

[BS5711]

You guys can say whatever you want. The proof is in the pudding.. I hear what I hear.

People that are streaming music on lower quality distorted setups might not be able to tell the difference between bit rates, but on my speaker setup (and IEM/portable rig) the difference is clear as day.

That is the standard audiophile response.

“ I can’t help it if your hearing isn’t good enough or your gear isn’t revealing enough. “

Have you wondered why you seem to hear differences that should need technical manipulation to even detect (gain riding as 71 dB called it) and tested yourself to determine if there wasn’t some expectation bias at play ?

Or do you simply perceive a difference and accept that as definitive proof like most people do.

Edit to add:

You probably think Amir is satanic but between 12 and 22 minutes explains why you should not hear a difference in normal music listening:

 

[Diet Kokaine]

Again. I have no frame of reference as to what "Amir" is hearing or not hearing.
On my very finely tuned "Audiophile" system, a 2 year old can spot the differences.
It's not subtle, it's a very clear night and day difference.
Unlike you, I have no use for "Amir" and his theories, I've done the work.
I'm speaking from years of personal experience.

Scientific theories are subservient to observation, not the other way around.