Newbie question: i don't know how to see if my music has files " files over 24-bit/96kHz"

[RoninJKD]

Hello everyone! I am a new member here.

I am a hard core lover of my music! I have just made the decision to change my collection from 320kbps mp3 to flac lossless.

My first step is to purchase a stereo system. I travel for work,,but might spend a year at a time at one location.Now, most systems are too big to lug arround, and over weight baggage costs will kill me..so i'm looking for a small micro stero system with fantastic sound.

My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "

Now...i right clicked on my songs, and on properties, it says nothing about bit rate or khz numbers.

Obviously, i don't want to buy a system that can't play all my flac digital songs.

How do i find out if my music is compatable with any system i purchase???

Thank you in advance!! Tim

 

[PurpleAngel]

I am a hard core lover of my music! I have just made the decision to change my collection from 320kbps mp3 to flac lossless.
My first step is to purchase a stereo system. I travel for work,,but might spend a year at a time at one location.Now, most systems are too big to lug around, and over weight baggage costs will kill me..so i'm looking for a small micro stero system with fantastic sound.
My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "
Now...i right clicked on my songs, and on properties, it says nothing about bit rate or khz numbers.
Obviously, i don't want to buy a system that can't play all my flac digital songs.
How do i find out if my music is compatible with any system i purchase???

 
Audio-CDs (like 99.99% of them) have music files that are 16-bit/44.1k, so you only need to make the FLAC file (from the CD source) 16-bit/44.1k.
My modern Blu-ray movie disks come with 16-bit/48k audio files
So the chance of you having a need for the full function of a 24-bit/96k DAC is remote, let alone any need for something that does 24-bit/192k.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Just look at the properties of the file from inside your PC music player. For example, from VLC, just select Tools->Codec Information and you will see a screen like this:

 

[tomb]

Hello everyone! I am a new member here.

I am a hard core lover of my music! I have just made the decision to change my collection from 320kbps mp3 to flac lossless.

My first step is to purchase a stereo system. I travel for work,,but might spend a year at a time at one location.Now, most systems are too big to lug arround, and over weight baggage costs will kill me..so i'm looking for a small micro stero system with fantastic sound.

My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "

Now...i right clicked on my songs, and on properties, it says nothing about bit rate or khz numbers.

Obviously, i don't want to buy a system that can't play all my flac digital songs.

How do i find out if my music is compatable with any system i purchase???

Thank you in advance!! Tim

 
"Doesn't play files over 24-bit/96kHz" may be valid for the DAC, but it's not for the music player.  You can play anything of higher-resolution and at least Foobar2000 will convert it all seamlessly.  Not only that, but you will be able to hear the difference of the higher resolution files, even if your DAC is still limited to 16-bit, 44.1kHz.
 
See the rest of the conversation below ...
 

 

I am a hard core lover of my music! I have just made the decision to change my collection from 320kbps mp3 to flac lossless.
My first step is to purchase a stereo system. I travel for work,,but might spend a year at a time at one location.Now, most systems are too big to lug around, and over weight baggage costs will kill me..so i'm looking for a small micro stero system with fantastic sound.
My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "
Now...i right clicked on my songs, and on properties, it says nothing about bit rate or khz numbers.
Obviously, i don't want to buy a system that can't play all my flac digital songs.
How do i find out if my music is compatible with any system i purchase???

 
Audio-CDs (like 99.99% of them) have music files that are 16-bit/44.1k, so you only need to make the FLAC file (from the CD source) 16-bit/44.1k.
My modern Blu-ray movie disks come with 16-bit/48k audio files
So the chance of you having a need for the full function of a 24-bit/96k DAC is remote, let alone any need for something that does 24-bit/192k.

 
I agree with this.  Further, even if you have higher-resolution files, you only need 16-bit, 44.1kHz capability in your digital-analog source to hear even the best details in high-resolution files.  There might be some software interpolation going on with media players such as Foobar2000, or in the FLAC file conversion, but I think that pales in comparison to the bad effects of recording at 16-bit, 44.1kHz.  Standard practice is to engage filters in the electronics so that the bandwidth is absolutely limited to 44.1kHz in recording.  Those filters (capacitors, resistors, inductors) have an effect on the sound that may intrude into the audio band.
 
Meanwhile, FLAC can convert any bit rate or resolution audio file, or at least there are special plug-ins for Foobar that will play the higher-resolution files.  The result may be a FLAC file, iso file, or even an AUDIO_TS folder with a much higher Bitrate.  Typically, CD Redbook FLAC files end up at 500-1000 kbps.  High resolution and bit-rate FLAC files may end up 2000-3000 or even 5000 to 10,000 kbps.  Yet, the conversion in listening through a 16-bit, 44.1kHz DAC is still superior to a CD Redbook created FLAC file.
 
Some people have posted before that that mathematics is actually a "Proof" and that 16-bit 44.1kHz completely captures everything in the audio band.  Where the differences lie is in the recording and the filters that are used at lower bit-rates and resolution.  So, a recorded high-bit-rate, high-resolution file will be superior, but a 16-bit, 44.1kHz DAC will capture it all in playback.
 
Hope that helps ...

 

[money4me247]

the proof is the nyquist-shannon sampling theorem.
 
"any sound wave could be perfectly re-created so long as it was limited in bandwidth and sampled at a rate more than twice its own frequency." The audible frequency range by the human ear is generally 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Hence 44.1 kHz sampling rate is more than adequate to capture all humanly audible sonic information bit-perfectly for music reproduction.
 
here are some good reads:
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

 

[tomb]

  the proof is the nyquist-shannon sampling theorem.
 
"any sound wave could be perfectly re-created so long as it was limited in bandwidth and sampled at a rate more than twice its own frequency." The audible frequency range by the human ear is generally 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Hence 44.1 kHz sampling rate is more than adequate to capture all humanly audible sonic information bit-perfectly for music reproduction.
 
here are some good reads:
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

 
Yes - good links, but I think the normal interpretation is that this is adequate for recording, too. It's not.  Your second link is an interesting read on higher sampling rate and even attempts to define an optimum.  Without getting into that argument specifically, I think one can conclude that 44.1kHz is not the end-all sampling rate when recording.

 

[money4me247]

  Yes - good links, but I think the normal interpretation is that this is adequate for recording, too. It's not.  Your second link is an interesting read on higher sampling rate and even attempts to define an optimum.  Without getting into that argument specifically, I think one can conclude that 44.1kHz is not the end-all sampling rate when recording.

perhaps not. specifically in the scope of professional recording, but even then, there seems that there are more important things to worry about for audio engineers than the sampling rate and there is a degree of downside from possibly introducing unintended distortion.
 
I do think this answers the newbie or the general audiophile consumer question though how much you really need to worry about sampling rates. there may be some benefits gained from higher sampling rates (from the recording studio or audio component manufacturer side), but not directly related to the listener's concern of I am getting the best sonic reproduction possible. Doubtful you can audibly distinguish differences between sampling rates using the same-mastered source in a objective blind test.
 
as always, feel free to disagree or interpret the information differently.

 

[tomb]

 

  Yes - good links, but I think the normal interpretation is that this is adequate for recording, too. It's not.  Your second link is an interesting read on higher sampling rate and even attempts to define an optimum.  Without getting into that argument specifically, I think one can conclude that 44.1kHz is not the end-all sampling rate when recording.

perhaps not. specifically in the scope of professional recording, but even then, there seems that there are more important things to worry about for audio engineers than the sampling rate and there is a degree of downside from possibly introducing unintended distortion.
 
I do think this answers the newbie or the general audiophile consumer question though how much you really need to worry about sampling rates. there may be some benefits gained from higher sampling rates (from the recording studio or audio component manufacturer side), but not directly related to the listener's concern of I am getting the best sonic reproduction possible. Doubtful you can audibly distinguish differences between sampling rates using the same-mastered source in a objective blind test.
 
as always, feel free to disagree or interpret the information differently.

Well, not to be argumentative, but I can tell the difference between high-bit rate files and not, with the same master - all from a 16 bit, 44.1kHz DAC.  You also blew it mentioning an "objective blind test."

  These are often less revealing than other tests and often used as a red herring approach to challenging whether listeners can tell the difference between different pieces of audio equipment.  The truth is that no one can tell.  The aural memory of a human being is the most fleeting of senses - perhaps a few seconds at most.  Any blind test that fails to take this into account is simply increasing the amount of scattered data.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "
---
How do i find out if my music is compatable with any system i purchase???-

 

Aside from all the responses so far, you are not likely to just have 24bit/xxxkhz lying around. Nearly all digital music out there is 16/44.1, with some audio in video disc formats at 16/48. You would need to deliberately buy high resolution files. There is no scientific evidence that ears can distinguish between 16/44.1 and 24/xxx, so there's nothing to be gained and will just eat more space if you use them in a portable system.

That said, if you have a lot of storage at home for example for archiving and can take a portable HDD when you travel (or your laptop still has an HDD instead of SSD) you can just jockey the content as needed, and since sites that sell FLAC don't charge a lot more for high res, you could consider taking that instead for archiving.
 
 

My first look around,,dragged me to thing like the Cambridge Audio Mini Xi, even though i don't think that's for me, since it doesn't come with built in speakers( which i ((think)) would be appropriate in my circumstances), the one specification i can't figure out,,was that this system says that one of the " con" of owing it was that it, " Doesn’t play files over 24-bit/96kHz "

 

Well, here's the thing. Not only is there no credible evidence that high res formats is better than lossless Redbook (16/44.1), but if possible you want a completely compact system? Even if there were audible differences, using a compact system has too many trade offs you might as well use MP3s.

For starters, tiny speakers - especially the type that can be housed in a single chassis along with the music player and amplifier - will not have full range response, and likely whatever range it can play the response won't be flat either (headphones and earphones of course are designed for and measured at a distance closer to the ears, unlike speakers that are measured at 1m away, and might get worse farther or closer). At the same time the imaging will be pretty much non-existent since the two speakers will be too close to each other. In some cases the right headphones may even have a more detailed reproduction of the soundstage, if at least to scale and with everything imaged in front of your face, but the important bit is that you can hear the vocals dead center (in some cases outside your head as well) and with everything else positioned around it in believable, precise, and proportionate locations. I mean, between a boombox that plays 24/96 (if you even find one; or hook up a laptop to a 24/96 DAC to its analogue input) and a smartphone used as a music server playing 16/44.1 FLAC with a direct digital amp into speakers placed 2m apart, 0.5m away from the walls at all sides, and me sitting 1.5m from the front of the speakers, I'd take the latter.

 

Of course, what you need is a portable; but does it really have to be speakers? Note that some hotel rooms aren't that well insulated when it comes to noise (I mean, we've had noise complaints when we held stag parties in multiple bedroom suites), so while most guests might tolerate hearing a bit of the BBC audible from the next room, some might not be so forgiving if you're blasting, say, Beck or Bob Dylan.

 

You can just use a portable system - there are one-box DAC-HPamps that can fit in a shirt pocket, and then it depends on how much space and what shape it is you have left to partially determine which headphone (some fold flat; some just fold the earcups in; some don't fold at all - you can buy a new bag or if you have a good bag you're happy with now consider which headphone depending on space) or earphone you should use.

 

Here's a quick snapshot I took of my bedside rig (the same DAC-HPamp and headphone I use with my laptop in my home office, but using my smartphone as a server bedside). Currently using it now as I'm running a few programs in the background. Note the relative sizes of the headphone and its DAC-HPamp to the SGS3.

 

 

 

 

 

[dazzerfong]

 
Well, not to be argumentative, but I can tell the difference between high-bit rate files and not, with the same master - all from a 16 bit, 44.1kHz DAC.  You also blew it mentioning an "objective blind test."

  These are often less revealing than other tests and often used as a red herring approach to challenging whether listeners can tell the difference between different pieces of audio equipment.  The truth is that no one can tell.  The aural memory of a human being is the most fleeting of senses - perhaps a few seconds at most.  Any blind test that fails to take this into account is simply increasing the amount of scattered data.

 
If you're talking about high-bit rate between MP3 files, I believe you. If we're talking about 16/24, yeah, sorry, but I disagree heavily. And if you still believe it, and say 'objective blind tests' are off, then what are the 'other' tests? I'm interested in seeing people with 'golden ears', so please, provide a valid alternative to ABX, do it then post it. Otherwise, the red herring is you trying to get around the fact that you're unable to decisively prove your statement.

 

[money4me247]

 
Well, not to be argumentative, but I can tell the difference between high-bit rate files and not, with the same master - all from a 16 bit, 44.1kHz DAC.  You also blew it mentioning an "objective blind test."

  These are often less revealing than other tests and often used as a red herring approach to challenging whether listeners can tell the difference between different pieces of audio equipment.  The truth is that no one can tell.  The aural memory of a human being is the most fleeting of senses - perhaps a few seconds at most.  Any blind test that fails to take this into account is simply increasing the amount of scattered data.

 
you contradicted yourself there. if aural memory of a human being is only a few seconds at most, then it would be impossible for you to claim that you can tell any sonic differences between tracks... whether blind testing or just listening.
 
if you are talking about bitrate like 320kbps or lower, I agree there is an audible difference that one can pick up during blind testing. if you are talking about being able to hear sampling rate differences, I respectfully disagree.

 

[billybob_jcv]

One of the only good things about being 50+ is that I really don't have to worry about things like this anymore. Having old, abused ears gives me an excuse for not hearing all the subtleties...

 

[tomb]

 

 
Well, not to be argumentative, but I can tell the difference between high-bit rate files and not, with the same master - all from a 16 bit, 44.1kHz DAC.  You also blew it mentioning an "objective blind test."

  These are often less revealing than other tests and often used as a red herring approach to challenging whether listeners can tell the difference between different pieces of audio equipment.  The truth is that no one can tell.  The aural memory of a human being is the most fleeting of senses - perhaps a few seconds at most.  Any blind test that fails to take this into account is simply increasing the amount of scattered data.

 
you contradicted yourself there. if aural memory of a human being is only a few seconds at most, then it would be impossible for you to claim that you can tell any sonic differences between tracks... whether blind testing or just listening.
 
if you are talking about bitrate like 320kbps or lower, I agree there is an audible difference that one can pick up during blind testing. if you are talking about being able to hear sampling rate differences, I respectfully disagree.

 
I didn't say I used double blind testing to tell the difference.

 
I'm talking about living with the files - same as it is with equipment - listening day-in and day-out.  I never said I could hear the difference in a double-blind test.  If you took me literally, without background, then how could I ever tell the difference with anything?
 
You are writing as if the only difference measurement possible is with a blind test.

 

[tomb]

One of the only good things about being 50+ is that I really don't have to worry about things like this anymore. Having old, abused ears gives me an excuse for not hearing all the subtleties...

 
You hear more than you think you can.  There's much more to music than being able to hear an extended frequency response.

 

[tomb]

 

 
Well, not to be argumentative, but I can tell the difference between high-bit rate files and not, with the same master - all from a 16 bit, 44.1kHz DAC.  You also blew it mentioning an "objective blind test."

  These are often less revealing than other tests and often used as a red herring approach to challenging whether listeners can tell the difference between different pieces of audio equipment.  The truth is that no one can tell.  The aural memory of a human being is the most fleeting of senses - perhaps a few seconds at most.  Any blind test that fails to take this into account is simply increasing the amount of scattered data.

 
If you're talking about high-bit rate between MP3 files, I believe you. If we're talking about 16/24, yeah, sorry, but I disagree heavily. And if you still believe it, and say 'objective blind tests' are off, then what are the 'other' tests? I'm interested in seeing people with 'golden ears', so please, provide a valid alternative to ABX, do it then post it. Otherwise, the red herring is you trying to get around the fact that you're unable to decisively prove your statement.

 
Sorry, but this leads to a circular argument.  Provide a valid alternative to ABX?  It's really interesting that so many of you believe the only difference measurement possible is through blind testing.  Tell me ... are you unable to distinguish between foods unless they're given to you in an ABX?  Can you instantly tell the difference between a Blue Ray disc and a quality DVD under an ABX scenario?  Is there absolutely nothing of value to learn in subtle differences over time and repeated exposure?
 
How do you ever tell the difference in anything?