HD 192/24 Audio

[Brockybear]

I have always been sceptical about digital downloads, preferring my analogue and CD collection as the source of my music. It was only recently I had a spare Cary DA converter and a spare Mac with a optical TOSlink. I thought what the heck and downloaded a couple of albums in AIFF and FLAC formats. The recordings were 192Khz 24Bit depth. The quality is nothing short of astounding. The sound from my Khorns is like just so clear and lifelike and the soundstage is wide with clear placement of the instruments. Diana Krall "Quiet Nights" has to be heard to be believed . Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" is a delight

Anyone else heard 192/24 ? Is it the future of Audiophile music?

[wuzzzer]

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/t/173189.aspx

[derrickdj1]

Good digital music is here to stay. No album art, but the storage is so much easier if you collect a lot music.

[Ski Bum]

Looking at the dynamic range database, it appears some of the 24/192 material has less compression than their counterparts. Figures they would do that, as there is no demonstrable audible benefit from the higher sampling rate and bit depth over 16/44.1.

[Brockybear]

If that is the case why does the music sound so much clearer?

[Marvel]

The higher bit rate (24 as opposed to 16) allows for greater dynamics. In the record process, it translates to more headroom. The higher sampling rate, if your dac allows on playback, to have an extended high end and sparkle if you will.

Console designer Rupert Neve said a lot of his analog consoles easily were flat past 40Khz, and said we can't hear that high but we can tell if it's not there.

Bruce

[muel]

...as there is no demonstrable audible benefit from the higher sampling rate and bit depth over 16/44.1.

I keep seeing/hearing people say this and they seem so emphatic. Simply not my experience. I can't help but wonder if the so called 24/192 material that they heard didn't perhaps get up converted from 16/44.1 in which case I wouldn't expect any improvement. Perhaps if you tried down converting some true 24/192 material for comparison? I haven't had much experience (or need) as of yet to down convert but when I have converted from 24 bit to 16 bit that was the most noticible change. From 192 to 96kHz I just couldn't tell a difference.

[Marvel]

Anyone else heard 192/24 ? Is it the future of Audiophile music?

This is the spec for DVD-A (mono and stereo audio tracks), not sure how many folks are releasing DVD A discs, or the competitor SACD.

Bruce

[Marvel]

...as there is no demonstrable audible benefit from the higher sampling rate and bit depth over 16/44.1.

I keep seeing/hearing people say this and they seem so emphatic. Simply not my experience. I can't help but wonder if the so called 24/192 material that they heard didn't perhaps get up converted from 16/44.1 in which case I wouldn't expect any improvement. Perhaps if you tried down converting some true 24/192 material for comparison? I haven't had much experience (or need) as of yet to down convert but when I have converted from 24 bit to 16 bit that was the most noticible change. From 192 to 96kHz I just couldn't tell a difference.

If it was upconverted, you many not hear an improvement at all. You wouldn't need to downconvert from 24/192 to the same thing. [*-)]

Doing an 88.2 recording to 44.1 should be painless is it only drops every other sample. Dave Mallette could fill you in on the best way to do this. He tries to record DSD, which is 1bit. You can change to any sample rate with no loss in the conversion.

ruce

[muel]

I used dBpoweramp to down convert from 192/24 to 96/24 because my bedroom DAC wouldn't go higher than 96/24. Listening to both on my main system I just couldn't tell a difference in the single session I listened. I didn't really care enough to put much effort into it because I was ready to listen to something else that evening. I also converted from 192/24 to 44.1/16 so I could burn to a CD later and this is where I could hear the difference.

I would be happier if I DIDN'T hear a difference! Then I wouldn't be tempted to buy higher resolution versions of some of my favorites.

[derrickdj1]

I like digital music so I just downloaded the HD tracks sampler. It is equal to my amazon mp3 files in SQ. My avr has a 192/24 DAC. Amazon files are 256 kbs. most of my files are greater than 128 kbs. I guess it depends on what you are use to listening to. The 128 or less files don't sound nearly as nice.

[Mallette]

There's a bit more activity in DSF, the format of SACD (which is a release medium, not a format). It is superior to 24/192 in one critical way. You can transcode to PCM at any bit/sample rate cleanly. 24/192 to 16/44.1 involves "dithering" due to the uneven division. The sample rate of DSF, 2.8mhz, is so high that all division is effectively even to any PCM bit/sample rate.

That DSF is not ubiquitious for high res is yet another example of Sony's inept marketing in that they kept the format completely proprietary for many years. They've begun to open up a bit.

I did an A/B test of a DSF recording of on of my Virgil Fox direct to disc LPs that's considered one of the best LPs every against the disc with some fairly good ears present and there was a perfectly even divide on what was what.

I suppose it's always possible there is something better, but it's really hard to imagine it.

Dave

[Ski Bum]

...as there is no demonstrable audible benefit from the higher sampling rate and bit depth over 16/44.1.

I keep seeing/hearing people say this and they seem so emphatic. Simply not my experience. I can't help but wonder if the so called 24/192 material that they heard didn't perhaps get up converted from 16/44.1 in which case I wouldn't expect any improvement. Perhaps if you tried down converting some true 24/192 material for comparison? I haven't had much experience (or need) as of yet to down convert but when I have converted from 24 bit to 16 bit that was the most noticible change. From 192 to 96kHz I just couldn't tell a difference.

Muel, I was referring to a bias controlled test published by the AES on the topic. I think the Boston Audio Society was involved, or they had their own test going, and came up with the same results. Here's a link, not a primary source, but has links to the AES paper and others:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[muel]

Interesting read! Far
be it from me to attempt to throw rocks at good science lest the puny pebble
that I could heave would merely ricochet and hit me square between the
eyes. I admit that I don’t have enough
redundant information on much of this topic to have a firm understanding of all
the sciences involved. That said, it really bugs me that he says that
our human vision of a limited spectrum of light is directly analogous to the
audible spectrum of sound waves. I don’t
buy that analogy! Sound waves are
nothing like light waves. We talk about
both having frequencies and waves… we even talk about sound as having “color” (which
has to do with harmonics and nothing visual) but how sound and light waves move
and their effect (or lack of) is completely different.

It isn’t that I agree or disagree with the rest of what he
says… it is just when I find a problem with a part I tend to question the
whole.

Most of us are chasing the sound that sounds best to us. If someone uses a higher quality master for
the high resolution download or 16/44.1 CD most of us would probably want the
better master version which ever that is.

Thanks for the link!
This got me interested in looking at this some more when I have time.

[Chris A]

Looking at the dynamic range database, it appears some of the 24/192 material has less compression than their counterparts. Figures they would do that, as there is no demonstrable audible benefit from the higher sampling rate and bit depth over 16/44.1.

For the new Audiogon "Wake Up Your Ears" tracks, the DR Database values are:

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=37275

Chris

[bracurrie]

Diana Krall "Quiet Nights" has to be heard to be believed . Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" is a delight Anyone else heard 192/24 ? Is it the future of Audiophile music?

I believe so, if you take care to keep the chain digital until just before amplification. I have spoken with Rob who wrote the software Pure Music, who has been working with digital audio since his Bellcore days thirty years ago or so, and he asserts that with at least 24bit depth that a 44.1Khz sample rate is more than good enough if the audio engine does a good job processing the audio before it gets sent to the DAC. He believes that dynamic range is important enough that when using Pure Music you can optionally display the dynamic range when playing a track.

I too am using a mac mini with a USB to SPIF converter connected to a Van Alstine DAC and am getting excellent results even with CD rips.

[Ski Bum]

Most of us are chasing the sound that sounds best to us. If someone uses a higher quality master for

the high resolution download or 16/44.1 CD most of us would probably want the

better master version which ever that is.

That's the money shot right there.

I agree w/ Chris that the dynamic range database should be consulted. And caveat emptor, as always. Consider merchants like HD Tracks, but keep in mind they are not responsible for the mastering/production, they're just the middle man selling whatever the record companies provide. Some of their offerings are better, some identical, and some actually worse than less expensive alternatives.

[Daddy Dee]

Some years ago i got an AH! Njoe Tjoebs CDP. Listened to it stock for a season and then decided to take a chance on the upsampler option. I had been extremely skeptical that it would work, but actually could discern a pleasant difference and improvement.

one reviewer called the difference like 'lifting a veil'. thought that sounded about right to me.

[babadono]

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Ski Bum,

Thanks for the link. Very interesting read.....So......16 bit digital is capable of 96db DR and with proper dithering even more. It's just a shame it isn't used.

Eric

[Quiet_Hollow]

Ski Bum,

Thanks for the link.

+1 book marked & archived

I really enjoyed the "Digital Primer" video presentation linked to in the oversampling section: http://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml [Y]

..and the footnotes are a nearly priceless resource.

Confirmed what my ears have been hearing all along with what little I've dabbled in desktop audio / video publishing.