Digital and Higher Bit Rates

[rplace]

11 hours ago, RadBlue said:

Getting back to the OP's original question, the highest resolution recording for your Oppo 203 would be the DSD64 version also known as DSD Single rate 2.8mhz.

Keep in mind as stated elsewhere in this thread, if the original master the file is taken from was poor,well nothing will fix that no matter how hi-rez you go.

If you goto Native DSD site your pretty safe as they are very picky about what they list, but don't expect to find artists you're familiar with as recording in very hi-rez is a very niche market and most the big name are recorded with a lot of compression to sound best on cheap earbuds for the masses.

They do let ya listen to most every song so pick a genre and just find something you like. You can download the zipfile then just extract it to a USB drive to plug into the oppo.

If buying an album make sure you have room...songs from 1 album I dl'd went  from 250MB to 650MB per song.

Check the "technical" tab on the album page to get info on the recording, sometime right down to the mic's they used

Oh and this is where the DSF comes in, you'll notice on the oppo the file extension  is  .dsf

 

Thanks so much for the info and explanation. Point taken about the older recordings/masters. Thanks to others for the slight thread drift. I've enjoyed reading and branching out to other sites to fill in some gaps. Always fun to learn something.

[RadBlue]

2 hours ago, rplace said:

 

Thanks so much for the info and explanation. Point taken about the older recordings/masters. Thanks to others for the slight thread drift. I've enjoyed reading and branching out to other sites to fill in some gaps. Always fun to learn something.

Don't go by age to judge sound quality of a recording. Many old recordings are very good, and most modern are bad.

Google " Loudness Wars" and read up on compression, what it does and why its used  to get a better understanding of the whole issue.

[whell]

On 4/17/2020 at 4:36 PM, Schu said:

For most older files a hi bit depth and faster sample rate only equate to a larger file size. Newer music that is mastered with modern technologies WILL benefit from the humongous file sizes.

 

New music that is mastered at high bit rates and then released with the higher bit rate are as rare as hen's teeth.  Maybe this will change over time.  

[codewritinfool]

2 hours ago, whell said:

 

New music that is mastered at high bit rates and then released with the higher bit rate are as rare as hen's teeth.  Maybe this will change over time.  

The aforementioned AIX does just that.

[artto]

"I want to buy one High Rez download to compare (I can't stream due to Internet or lack of it where I live)."

 

That's unfortunate. Because that's really the only "best" way to do it.

 

I've always been suspect of so-called Hi-Res downloads (ie: HDTracks). I'm quite sure they just upsample digital files originally in CD rez and charge us more for it. Not quite the same thing as playing an essentially a perfect digital copy in the same resolution as it was recorded.

 

That being said, the recording engineer is king. What matters most is what he/she did with the recording in the first place. After that it's the listening room.

 

Here's an interesting comparison of different sample rates/bit depth from a source I consider honest, informative and reliable.

 

 

[joessportster]

On 4/17/2020 at 3:40 PM, rplace said:

 

Task at hand boys, task at hand

 

What file format in the above OP should I buy as a trial??? I want to make sure it will work with my player. I would like to try DSD if possible

 

I hear you (pun intended) that 16/44 is all that is needed. I'm still going to find out for myself.

Sent you a PM Rich

[billybob]

13 minutes ago, artto said:

"I want to buy one High Rez download to compare (I can't stream due to Internet or lack of it where I live)."

 

That's unfortunate. Because that's really the only "best" way to do it.

 

I've always been suspect of so-called Hi-Res downloads (ie: HDTracks). I'm quite sure they just upsample digital files originally in CD rez and charge us more for it. Not quite the same thing as playing an essentially a perfect digital copy in the same resolution as it was recorded.

 

That being said, the recording engineer is king. What matters most is what he/she did with the recording in the first place. After that it's the listening room.

 

Here's an interesting comparison of different sample rates/bit depth from a source I consider honest, informative and reliable.

 

 

You may have already considered

Satellite internet. There are at least 3 providers nowadays. Thanks

[artto]

On 4/17/2020 at 9:16 AM, rplace said:

Not looking for an argument of what we can and can't hear and if extra bits matter or not. I'm just really curious to listen myself, just because. That said I need a bit if digital, deciphering help.

 

There are a hand full of titles that I have original Blue Note vinyl LPs from the 50/60s, standard CDs, RVG Edition CDs, and stupid expensive reissue Vinyl LPs.

 

I want to buy one High Rez download to compare (I can't stream due to Internet or lack of it where I live). Most of my digital set up is for casual listening and FLAC at 16 bit / 44.1 kHz is the max supported. I know what a bit is in computer memory terms, but I don't know what the 44.1kHz represents in the context of music files. Any explanation there appreciated. If my speakers can do 20Hz-20kHz and my old ears can only hear 10K or so what does that 44.1 even mean....already getting side tracked here.....refocus.

 

The one place I can currently play higher resolution files is my OPPO-203, which lucky for me is where my "real" system is. The Oppo manual says it can play:

 

FLAC 5.1 24 bits / 192 kHz as well as DSF (DSD64)

 

Obviously, 24 is greater than 16 in the bits department and 192k is bigger than 44.1k. I've never even heard of DSF, but casually I know DSD is a godsend or the devil depending the fence and your side of it.

 

So finally my question (thanks for reading this far).

 

If I don't care about money and I don't care if I can actually hear the difference but I want to convince myself; given my Oppo's limitations above which of the  below "should" be the highest quality file (not necessary best sounding) files my Oppo will play?

 

 

 

 

 

It's not so much about the file type/sample rate/bit depth as it is about the recording itself. If the original recording sucks then so will any digital file type/sample rate/bit depth of your choice.

 

Just try to find something that you are familiar with/like and consider an excellent recording, with the highest sample rate/bit depth available. If you can, buy several of the same at different sample rate/bit depth. I doubt you'll hear a difference unless the original recording was recorded digitally at the highest sample rate/bit depth available and some of the secondary downloads of the same were "downsampled" to a lower res. Upsampling in and of itself doesn't make a recording sound better. In my experience it can actually make things worse. The less conversion of sample rate/bit depth the better.

[YK Thom]

A somewhat related question: I have been streaming some of the internet radio stations from my computer (desktop), through my Apple TV and then into the system. Does Apple TV put through the 320 bit rate I am sending it? I just signed up with Jazzradio.com. I am very much a newby with this sort of thing.

[pbphoto]

 320 kbit internet stream --> desktop browser/app --> upsample to Airplay 48K/16 bit digital stream --> Apple TV --> either 48/16 digital-out OR analog out depending on how you have it connected.

[Edgar]

On 4/20/2020 at 10:56 AM, codewritinfool said:

I will then be able to do a spectral analysis on the recorded snippet and see what it looks like.  I can already tell you that some of the "high-res" recordings that I purchased and that are in my possession show a very clear wall at 22.05 kHz.....   They were sourced from CD material.

 

http://tomshacks.blogspot.com/2016/02/hi-res-recordings-part-2.html

http://tomshacks.blogspot.com/2016/02/hi-res-recordings-part-3-vinyl-revenge.html

[Edgar]

42 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

 320 kbit internet stream --> desktop browser/app --> upsample to Airplay 48K/16 bit digital stream --> Apple TV --> either 48/16 digital-out OR analog out depending on how you have it connected.

 

To be precise, the conversion from 320kbs Internet stream to 48kHz/16bit audio stream is a reconstruction, not an upsampling.

[pbphoto]

1 hour ago, Edgar said:

 

To be precise, the conversion from 320kbs Internet stream to 48kHz/16bit audio stream is a reconstruction, not an upsampling.

I thought reconstruction happened at the last step - going from digital to analog?

 

Correction above on my part - Airplay is 44.1/16, the Apple TV upsamples everything to 48/16.  So I think this is better:

 

320 kbit internet stream -->

desktop browser/app decodes/uncompresses to 44.1/16 --->

Airplay 44.1K/16 bit digital stream -->

Apple TV upsample to 48/16 -->

Output either 48/16 digital-out OR (deconstructed) analog-out depending on how you have it connected.

[Edgar]

10 hours ago, pbphoto said:

I thought reconstruction happened at the last step - going from digital to analog?

 

It may be an issue of semantics. In digital signal processing, "upsampling" generally refers to changing the actual sampling rate from a lower rate to a higher rate (which is, itself, a complex process). Changing from the 320bps stream to the 48kHz (or whatever) samples is not "upsampling", it is reconstruction (or "rebuilding", or "decoding", or "decompression", or whatever someone wants to call it, other than "upsampling") of the original samples from information provided in the bitstream.