[gregorio]

no man, 24/96 is better sounding and human hear it,and 24/192 is hearing too with lots details.

First of all, do you have any reliable evidence for that claim? And secondly, if it’s better sounding than 16/44.1 how can 16/44.1 be perfect?

You didn’t answer the question, how can anything be better than perfect?

G

 

[71 dB]

no man, 24/96 is better sounding and human hear it,and 24/192 is hearing too with lots details.

No, humans don't hear the difference. Some people just assume they do.

 

[Claypole]

I did read a thread on another forum where somebody did some in depth testing of Tidal Masters, and they suggested that a lot of Tidal Masters 24hit tracks were simply upscaled 16/44 tracks...

 

[bigshot]

I did read a thread on another forum where somebody did some in depth testing of Tidal Masters, and they suggested that a lot of Tidal Masters 24hit tracks were simply upscaled 16/44 tracks...

I think that is true of HD tracks as well. Not necessarily that they're upscaling, but when the album was mixed, the engineer saw no purpose for super-audible frequencies and rolled them off. When they come along to do a higher data rate release, they just take the output from the master with no super-audible frequencies on it and package it as HD.

I've seen spectrum measurements that showed that some HD tracks had bands of noise at super-audible frequencies too... some sort of by product of processing that no one bothered to get rid of because the noise was too high and too low a level to be a problem.

Even with recordings that accurately reflect the super-audible frequencies the level is naturally so low, it is completely masked by lower octaves.

Super-audible frequencies are as useless as teats on a bull hog.

 

[bigshot]

no man, 24/96 is better sounding and human hear it,and 24/192 is hearing too with lots details.

16/44.1 is capable of reproducing *everything* a human can hear *perfectly*. Again, see the link in my sig titled "CD Sound Is All You Need".

The difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 is all beyond the range of human hearing. Only bats and dogs can hear a difference in the sampling rate, and the bit rate would require turning up the volume beyond the threshold of pain and beyond hearing damage to be able to hear the noise floor difference.

 

[Ieonasj]

No, humans don't hear the difference. Some people just assume they do.

from 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 diffrence feel big. but from 24/96 to 24/192 maybe no hear diffeence

 

[BS5711]

from 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 diffrence feel big. but from 24/96 to 24/192 maybe no hear diffeence

Have you blind tested that and not listened looking at a big number on a screen ?

I would put money on the difference being in your mind, nothing wrong with that, we all do it, human nature.

 

[bigshot]

from 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 diffrence feel big. but from 24/96 to 24/192 maybe no hear diffeence

You’re listening to mastering differences, not the file format. If you took your 24/96 file and bumped it down to 16/44.1, it would sound exactly the same to you. The number of zeros and ones don’t make a difference beyond 16/44.1 because everything your ears can hear can be perfectly reproduced by CD quality sound.

For the third time, see the link in my sig file. It explains in detail. If you want to know the truth so you can make informed decisions, you have to be willing to do a little research. You can’t just take the salesman’s word for it.

You can argue about it, but you have to admit you don’t understand how it works. Make at least a little effort to know.

 

[Steve999]

The 24/96 and 24/192 MQA third unfolding goes to 11.

 

[Ieonasj]

You’re listening to mastering differences, not the file format. If you took your 24/96 file and bumped it down to 16/44.1, it would sound exactly the same to you. The number of zeros and ones don’t make a difference beyond 16/44.1 because everything your ears can hear can be perfectly reproduced by CD quality sound.

For the third time, see the link in my sig file. It explains in detail. If you want to know the truth so you can make informed decisions, you have to be willing to do a little research. You can’t just take the salesman’s word for it.

You can argue about it, but you have to admit you don’t understand how it works. Make at least a little effort to know.

do you mean tidal hifi and tidal masters is same file quality? masters is inly louder?

 

[bigshot]

Human ears can't hear a difference between a 16/44.1 file and a 24/96 file. They both sound exactly the same. The 24/96 has more data in it, but not data that you can hear.

 

[Ieonasj]

Human ears can't hear a difference between a 16/44.1 file and a 24/96 file. They both sound exactly the same. The 24/96 has more data in it, but not data that you can hear.

ok . do you have about this jnfo or this you want to be that?

 

[bigshot]

----> LINK: https://web.archive.org/web/20200426202431/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[sander99]

Please be clear we are dealing with at least 2 seperate issues:
1. Is there audible difference due to file format only? (So 16 or 24 bit, 48, 96, or 192 kHz, MQA yes or no)
Answer: Between 16 versus 24 bit, 48 versus 96 or 192 kHz: No audible difference. Between MQA yes or no, and fully unfolded or not: I dont know for sure, only that MQA certainly is not audibly better, if audibly different it must be audibly worse.
2. Does Tidal use the same master for the different formats? Answer: I don't know, plus it could be for some music titles yes, for other music titles no.

 

[bigshot]

I've already said all that and it isn't connecting. Maybe your post will get through.