[grawk]

24 vs 16 bit recordings aren't going ot make any difference at all if the 16 bit recording was properly mastered. The only exceptions will be EXTREMELY dynamic recordings, that utilize more than the 90+db of headroom available in 16bit. 24bit makes a huge difference at record time, because you don't have to work as hard to maximize your levels. If that's then taken, have the loudest moment in the recording set at 0, and then take the top 16 bits, you really shouldn't ever run out of headroom. Except with things like canon shots, etc.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have downloaded a couple of tracks from Linn's site. The high-rez versions certainly sound good but so do the downconverted versions I made myself with Audacity. To put it bluntly: there is no difference at all. Recent blind tests strongly suggest that the Redbook conversion (44.1 kHz / 16 bit) is actually quite transparent. High-rez is just a way of selling us "Dark Side of the Moon" once more. Regards, L.

1. Well the difference is much more apparent on a good system (so your system spec would help)

2. The difference between 24/96 and 14/44 is most apparent (bluntly obvious) playing back solo piano pieces (I used the Liszt Sonata album to test this); My preconception that 24/44 = 24/96 in terms of practical sound quality no longer holds true anymore.

 

[infinitesymphony]

If you're an audio engineer and you can't tell the difference between the original 24-bit recording and a 16-bit downmix, you're not a very good engineer. Not just talking about classical music, either.

But it's true that the overall quality of the system and the acoustical properties of the room have huge influences on the ability to perceive resolution differences, so of course not everyone will hear the difference on their own systems.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Well the difference is much more apparent on a good system (so your system spec would help) 2. The difference between 24/96 and 14/44 is most apparent (bluntly obvious) playing back solo piano pieces (I used the Liszt Sonata album to test this); My preconception that 24/44 = 24/96 in terms of practical sound quality no longer holds true anymore.

If the difference between 16/44.1 and higher spec standards is obvious then even a moderately good system should be capable of rendering the difference. The difference should be massively obvious as it is an extension to 48K from 22.05K and an increase in DR to ~130db or 32X better than the 96DB of red book, the poor old red book recording should have no chance. In fact if you cant hear it on any modern piece of kit it must be severely faulty and you should send it back immediately

From what I have read from other members the Linn 29/96 recordings are (measurably) louder than the Linn 16/44.1 recordings - this makes direct comparisons difficult. You could check that your downsamples are the same average level as the 24/96 recordings otherwise it could be biasing the result. For instance the sound through my external DAC always sounds better than from my CD players internal DAC when I do a switch, but since it has a 0.5V greater output that may be an artifact - when I adjust the volume down the difference appears to go away.

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the difference between 16/44.1 and higher spec standards is obvious then even a moderately good system should be capable of rendering the difference. The difference should be massively obvious as it is an extension to 48K from 22.05K and an increase in DR to ~130db or 32X better than the 96DB of red book, the poor old red book recording should have no chance. In fact if you cant hear it on any modern piece of kit it must be severely faulty and you should send it back immediately From what I have read from other members the Linn 29/96 recordings are (measurably) louder than the Linn 16/44.1 recordings - this makes direct comparisons difficult. You could check that your downsamples are the same average level as the 24/96 recordings otherwise it could be biasing the result. For instance the sound through my external DAC always sounds better than from my CD players internal DAC when I do a switch, but since it has a 0.5V greater output that may be an artifact - when I adjust the volume down the difference appears to go away.

You should try download one of Linn's 24/96 piano recording (I recommend the Liszt sonata for the acoustic property of the recording venue), @ 16/44 I heard a loss of ambient information and the harmonics of the those HF notes sound incomplete.

A well recorded piano piece can tell you alot about how well or how poor your stereo system is. those 88keys and >100db dynamic range will wreck havoc on an average system.

<I think violin would be another good instrument to use the 24/96 on; along with those killer Mahler pieces>

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have downloaded a couple of tracks from Linn's site. The high-rez versions certainly sound good but so do the downconverted versions I made myself with Audacity. To put it bluntly: there is no difference at all.

I am interested in trying this comparsion for myself. How do you set it up. I have a bog standard 16/44.1 CD player and a 24/48 capable External DAC and a standard DVD player (whaich does 24/96 for DVD but only 24/44.1 for CD) but my onboard soundcard is very limited, but I am considering buying an Edirol external soundcard which supports 24/96 and I am prepared to buy a few tracks from Linn in CD and 24/96 formats but I need a fair way of doing a comparaison. I have access to Audacity.

Cheers

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should try download one of Linn's 24/96 piano recording (I recommend the Liszt sonata for the acoustic property of the recording venue), @ 16/44 I heard a loss of ambient information and the harmonics of the those HF notes sound incomplete. A well recorded piano piece can tell you alot about how well or how poor your stereo system is. those 88keys and >100db dynamic range will wreck havoc on an average system.

Well they will also wreak havoc on your ears if you (like I do) predominantly listen on headphones, to listen to something with a 100db DR the peaks must be at 110db - 120db, allowing a generous 10db background noise attenuation. For speakers it would be even worse since the ambient noise level is at about 20 - 30db (in a *quiet* house) , so your peak would be between hearing damage (120db) and threshold of pain (130db) levels, that is a frankly insane volume level. I will grant you that my Kefs could not handle that (110db is their top) but frankly I wouldnt ask them to.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif A well recorded piano piece can tell you alot about how well or how poor your stereo system is. those 88keys and >100db dynamic range will wreck havoc on an average system.

No piano recording has >100 db dynamic range. And certainly no Mahler recording.


Regards,

L.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am interested in trying this comparsion for myself. How do you set it up.

This way:

1. Download a high-res flac file from Linn's website.

2. Add the downloaded flac file to Foobar's playlist

3. Right-click the item on the playlist, then choose 'convert'. See that encoding preset is WAV. After conversion you'll have a high res wav file.

4. Open Audacity (I use version 1.2.4)

5. Choose 'file' - 'open', then choose the wav file just created with Foobar.

6. See 'Edit' - 'Preferences' - 'Quality'. I used 'high quality sinc interpolation' and rectangular dithering (I wonder what the differences are between various kinds of dither).

7. See 'Project Rate' in the lower left corner of Audacity - choose '44100'

8. Choose 'File' - then 'Export as wav' - exporting may take a couple of minutes but in the end you'll have a 44.1khz / 16 bit version of the downloaded file.


I used M-Audio Transit in my comparisons.


Regards,

L.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello /img/forum/go_quote.gif This way: 1. Download a high-res flac file from Linn's website. 2. Add the downloaded flac file to Foobar's playlist 3. Right-click the item on the playlist, then choose 'convert'. See that encoding preset is WAV. After conversion you'll have a high res wav file. 4. Open Audacity (I use version 1.2.4) 5. Choose 'file' - 'open', then choose the wav file just created with Foobar. 6. See 'Edit' - 'Preferences' - 'Quality'. I used 'high quality sinc interpolation' and rectangular dithering (I wonder what the differences are between various kinds of dither). 7. See 'Project Rate' in the lower left corner of Audacity - choose '44100' 8. Choose 'File' - then 'Export as wav' - exporting may take a couple of minutes but in the end you'll have a 44.1khz / 16 bit version of the downloaded file. I used M-Audio Transit in my comparisons.

Many thanks - I guess I will have to buy a 24/96 capable card first - it looks like my DVD player wont support WAV files just burned as files

Going off topic - does anybody know a away of burning 24/96 files to a DVD so that a normal (non DVD-A) DVD player will think it is a bog-standard DVD but play the 24/96 audio anyway ?

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Going off topic - does anybody know a away of burning 24/96 files to a DVD so that a normal (non DVD-A) DVD player will think it is a bog-standard DVD but play the 24/96 audio anyway ?

Good question... I don't think that anything but a DVD-Audio capable player could handle raw high-res. Most regular DVD-Video discs with 24/96 audio tracks are compressed and encoded using Dolby Digital or DTS, so I imagine your DVD player would expect it to be in one of those formats.

 

[grawk]

DVD-V handles 24/96. Google methods for doing it, they're out there.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif DVD-V handles 24/96. Google methods for doing it, they're out there.

Indeed, shortly after I asked the question I found this......
Audio DVD Creator - Create your own music DVD and enjoy it on any DVD player!

 

[infinitesymphony]

Ah, good, thanks for the clarification, guys.

Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing about uncompressed 24/96 PCM stereo in the DVD-V sections of a few DVD-Audio releases. Mastering it yourself will be the hard part, unless you're willing to pay for an assembled program; Audio DVD Creator should do the job.

 

[Crow]

Wow. Just bought a few 24/96 tracks from Linn Records, including one of the Liszt tracks. Burned a DVD-A using "DVD Audio Tools". Most immediately I noticed the slam of the 24 bits of dynamic range--there's just sooo much headroom! Hopefully I'll get around to doing some AB tests as discussed, but for now thanks to the OP for bringing up that record label. Not my first exposure to 24/96 but these Linn guys produce superb recordings that fully utilize the format!