Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
rplace

Digital and Higher Bit Rates

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

DSDas.JPG.28f056c01ca25b2381735227ef67d08b.JPG

 

FLACas.JPG.3fae00b891db2cf430d0835fa6f9e23c.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

 

I empathize.  As you may know, my 2-channel playback is exclusively though balanced Pono into balanced Class-D into my “Superized” HIPs and four DIY tapped horn subs.  The only exception is when I actually rip vinyl to FLAC files using Behringer U-PHONO UFO202 and Audacity.  I know you can’t make a 50s mono recording better by saving at highest possible resolution.  That said, given the cheap storage of hi-res files, I tend to rip and save at hi-res to preserve it at the best level possible.

 

Neil Young’s Pono system, IMO, oversold the benefits of hi-res recordings.  The potential of the hi-res recording process for expanded dynamic range, frequency response, etc., does not make recordings that were not made, or mastered, with hi-res in mind, perceptibly better.

 

These old ears cannot tell the difference in a hi-res recording from Pono, HDTracks, etc., or a CD ripped to FLAC and played through Pono player; all sound excellent.  That said, an Amazon mp3 download of Billie Jean is noticeably less dynamic than a Pono Music Store hi-res download of the same recording.

 

My bottom line, if all else is equal, I download the highest resolution available.  If downloads at higher than CD quality cost more, I’m happy with CD quality. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's his name at AIX may still have his test up and running.  He's taken some of his label's recordings at 96kHz/24bit (I believe), downcoverted a copy to 44.1/16, then upconverted it back again.  You pick, by ear only, which is which and report back.

 

The frequency is slightly more than double that of the highest encodable program frequency.  The bit depth is just the number of encodable volume steps.  The higher rates and depths are beneficial for the processing required to achieve the end result.  But once that final mix is made, good old CD-quality 44.1/16 is more than sufficient.  That's what Mr. AIX says, and I believe him.

 

Last I saw, his test was going about as expected, with results hovering over the "basically guessed" middle area of the chart, as it were.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, glens said:

But once that final mix is made, good old CD-quality 44.1/16 is more than sufficient. 

 

Yes, I would pretty much agree with that.

 

The higher bit rates are more important on the recording side of things, as a higher bitrate gives you more headroom. I do know some studios record at 88.2, as it is easier to down sample, but from what I have read, most are moving no higher than 96k.

 

This has some easy to understand explanations:

 

https://blogs.uoregon.edu/uocinetech/recording-and-exporting-standards/audio-recording-standards/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's his name at AIX may still have his test up and running.  He's taken some of his label's recordings at 96kHz/24bit (I believe), downcoverted a copy to 44.1/16, then upconverted it back again.  You pick, by ear only, which is which and report back.
 
The frequency is slightly more than double that of the highest encodable program frequency.  The bit depth is just the number of encodable volume steps.  The higher rates and depths are beneficial for the processing required to achieve the end result.  But once that final mix is made, good old CD-quality 44.1/16 is more than sufficient.  That's what Mr. AIX says, and I believe him.
 
Last I saw, his test was going about as expected, with results hovering over the "basically guessed" middle area of the chart, as it were.

Mark Waldrep is his name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rplace said:

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should try both DSD and PCM to see if your Oppo handles one or the other better, or if you can even hear a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

You should try both DSD and PCM to see if your Oppo handles one or the other better, or if you can even hear a difference.

 

Okay, lets pretend I'm an idiot....obviously I am bad at getting my point across via the written word. Given the best DAC I currently own will play this given the manual's specs:

 

21 minutes ago, rplace said:

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

 

 

What file format from below can/should I buy? I don't want to buy something I can't play. Below are available formats from Acoustic Sounds. I guess "Single Rate 2.8MHz/64fs" but since the player is a bit older and mentions DSF with DSC in parenthesis I'm a bit apprehensive. Reasonably sure FLAC 192kHz/24bit would be the choice if I don't go with DSD.

 

FLACas.JPG.3fae00b891db2cf430d0835fa6f9e23c.JPG

 

 

DSDas.JPG.28f056c01ca25b2381735227ef67d08b.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

How do you play FLAC flies through your Oppo today?  Here's a some info for you:  http://help.nativedsd.com/en/articles/94445-playing-dsd-on-oppo-machines-explained

 

 

Oppo to network via eathernet not wifi, NAS to network via eathernet cable as well. Cat 6 throughout and gigabit switches. Browse files via oppo's UI. 

 

EDIT: just read link. Interesting that it can't be over network. Thanks for that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an Oppo 203. Also my Emotiva XMC-1 Processor can do DSD64. I just recently got some DSF albums from NativeDSD site. DSF is just the file version.  DSD is always on a  disc like an SACD, DSF is the same but like a computer file. SQ is the same.

I can say that when you down-mix from DSF/DSD to PCM its like....someone put the veil back on is best I can do hehe. Get something from that site that was recorded in DSD and its just OMG!!!.

Its not that the PCM is bad its realy good....but the pure DSD/DSF is just that bit more over the edge..

 

Afterthought... For that last year or so I been wanting to build some horn loaded subs for my LSII's. Thing is when playing DSD/DSF threw my processor  I can't use subs,or tone controls, or trims lol it only passes it threw unmolested. Need to downmix to PCM to get controls back.

Lets put it this way..I stared down this DSD/DSF road 3 weeks ago and my subs haven't been on since :)

Oh and I just copied the album onto a USB stick and plugged it into the front of OPPO and play it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RadBlue said:

Get something from that site that was recorded in DSD and its just OMG

 

I thought no editing can go on within the DSD realm, that it's PCM until the final mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure on how its all done but yes when its in the DSD/DSF form it cant be messed with. Thing is some of these recording are before the final master. I picked up an album from ther psycodelic section  and the band had 2 versions (RAW) before mastering for CD and (smooth) after mastering. I grabbed the RAW version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RadBlue said:

Thing is some of these recording are before the final master.

 

Maybe better to say they're just different masters.  One evidently taken earlier in the stream, that was the basis for the last step.  I'd likely opt for that, too.  But depending on the rationale used in the final step, it could well become the "better" one to have... never know unless you hear them both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I propose to do:

 

I have two computers, one with an optical out and the other with an optical out AND in.  I have coupled them before just to see if I can play from one and record on the other, and it does work.

 

I would love to pick some tracks that are available on the various services in different resolutions and play them on the first computer, using the optical out.  I would first connect it to my DAC to see the actual sample rate, 44.1 / 96 / whatever, then connect it to the second computer's optical IN and record just a snippet.  (I know, probably a violation of some terms of service somewhere, but hey, this is academic research).

 

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.

 

I would love to see if there is a spectral difference / dynamics difference between the same tracks from different streaming providers.  Of course, I will post my results if there is interest.

 

Thoughts?

code

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 bit = 65.536

24 bit = 16,777,215

 

These are the available positions in a single sample.  24 bit has vastly more resolution than a 16 bit sample has.

 

Bit Rate:  Yes, someone mentioned that you need 2x sample rate of your highest audio frequency.  The problem there is that digital sound forms a brickwall filter at that maximum audio frequency; sound just SHUTS OFF above that frequency.  This is something that is abhorrent to nature, and the first octave or so below that brickwall filter has some pretty severe artifacts as far as phase response and frequency response go.

 

I've played around with the variations between the sample depths above, and 48khz vs 96KHz in the recording studio.  Every time we went up in either of those numbers, quality was noticibly better.  24 bit definitely sounded better than 16, but 24bit/48K still sounded like it was behind a scratchy wool blanket.  24b/96K was very very nice.  I don't think we had the capability of going farther at the time...

 

Metaphor, it's like going to Black-n-white at 12 frames/second to iMax HD at 60 frames/second.  Big difference in quality.

 

Now, can your ears hear it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...