Purchases Today

[71 dB]

Is it too much to say, that I am surprised. Would you mind to give some examples?

For example the psychoacoustic coding of lossy formats (mp3 etc.) rely on such thing as flat frequency response making it so, that the better gear you have, the more difficult it is to detect the effects of lossy coding because the premises of psychoacoustic information reduction works better.

Generally speaking, of course a better system is more likely to reveal differences in sound quality, but in some cases such as above it's actually the other way around.

[Karl Henning]

Not looking to get into an argument; just sharing my experience and opinion.  I'll leave it there and reply no further.

Man, I wish I had added that at the foot of my John Saint Williams posts . . . .

[Omicron9]

But is it so, that one needs high tech professional equipment and professionally constructed listening rooms to be able to hear the difference? Only a few of us do have acces to that kind of luxury.

Very good question!  Sorry; I should have been more clear.  I could hear the differences on headphones, I wasn't referring to the studio monitors.  It's not a day/night difference, but more like the visual difference between DVD and BluRay.  It's there, but it's not massive.

-09

[71 dB]

Man, I wish I had added that at the foot of my John Saint Williams posts . . . .

Whatever you say online someone will disagree...  0:)

[Omicron9]

Whatever you say online someone will disagree...  0:)

No they won't.

[prémont]

For example the psychoacoustic coding of lossy formats (mp3 etc.) rely on such thing as flat frequency response making it so, that the better gear you have, the more difficult it is to detect the effects of lossy coding because the premises of psychoacoustic information reduction works better.

Generally speaking, of course a better system is more likely to reveal differences in sound quality, but in some cases such as above it's actually the other way around.

Well, thanks, I understand.

[prémont]

No they won't.

Of course they will! 

[71 dB]

I could hear the differences on headphones, I wasn't referring to the studio monitors.  It's not a day/night difference, but more like the visual difference between DVD and BluRay.  It's there, but it's not massive.

-09

I find the difference between DVD and Blu-ray rather massive unless the Blu-ray is very bad. At typical picture sizes and viewing distances the resolution of DVD is below the resolution of human eye.

Try converting a 192/24 file to 44.1/16 and then back to 192/24. Do you hear differences between original 192/24 and manipulated 192/24? that test eliminates the issues related to DAC sample rates. Convertions should be done using highest quality sinc-interpolation.

[prémont]

Very good question!  Sorry; I should have been more clear.  I could hear the differences on headphones, I wasn't referring to the studio monitors.  It's not a day/night difference, but more like the visual difference between DVD and BluRay.  It's there, but it's not massive.

-09

Thanks, you have made yourself sufficiently clear now.

I can add, that I only use headphones, when I want to analyze the sound. For musical listening - and enjoyment - I use floorspeakers.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

This is a question which is very difficult to resolve, especially since we can only resort to invocation of some sort of authority to support our points of view here.

I will say this. If you can find one example where a 16 bit, 44.1 kHz reduction is indistinguishable from a high quality Hi Res master then it is absolutely proven that the 44.1 kHz resolution is sufficient. Someone can then produce as many counter examples where 16 bit, 44.1 kHz is audibly worse and they only prove that the conversion was not done well.

My experience comes from comparing the CD layer and 2 channel SACD layer of high quality hybrid releases. I have usually used Pentatone releases as my standard, because I believe that label has the highest technical standards. Since they release only SACD, I am confident that the SACD and CD layers derive from the exact same source and the conversion to CD resolution has been done optimally. I find the CD and 2 channel SACD programs utterly undistinguishable on my player (a Marantz SA8004 SACD player) using good reproduction equipment (Beyerdynamic T1 headphones, a dedicated headphone amp with crossfeed).

I also find that conversion between formats that is not done optimally can affect sound in subtle ways. My Marantz SA8004 also accepts digital inputs by TOSLINK (optical or coax) and more often than not I use it as a DAC. It accepts up to 192 kHz, 24-bit PCM, which is a native format for its internal DAC. While trying to find the best software for playing CD audio from my Mac I found that different software would stream data at different rates. Using iTunes and Apple Lossles format my player would report 96 kHz or 48 kHz audio was being received, depending on how I tweeked some settings. Using swimsian, 44.1 kHz audio. Subjectively the 96 kHz sounded a bit more mello than the 44.1 kHz. Whether this was due to the interpolation MacOS was using to convert the audio to 96 kHz, or the way my CD play was processing audio at different rates, I can't say. But I my conclusion is that any difference is audio heard between 44.1 kHz and a high resolution can easily be an artifact of the conversion math. All DACs being used today have high native sample rates. If Hi Res sounds better on a particular player, the explanation is likely that one digital signal chain is using better math than the other.

To sum up:
A) Pentatone Hi Rez -> Marantz DAC
B) Pentatone Hi Rez -> Pentatone conversion to 44.1 kHz -> Marantz DAC conversion to Hi Rez

A and B sound identical

C) 44.1 kHz -> Marantz conversion to Hi Rez
D) 44.1 kHz -> MacOS conversion to medium Rez -> Marantz conversion to Hi Rez

C and D sound slightly different

Conclusion, 44.1 kHz can sound identical it Hi Rez, but some digital conversion chains create subtle differences.

[Karl Henning]

Most interesting.

[71 dB]

Conclusion, 44.1 kHz can sound identical it Hi Rez, but some digital conversion chains create subtle differences.

Exactly!   0:)

[flyingdutchman]

Well, I will continue to buy hi-rez downloads and SACDs because I know there is a difference. 

[71 dB]

Well, I will continue to buy hi-rez downloads and SACDs because I know there is a difference.

SACD have multichannel support which is a plus and they are rarely more expensive than CD (often there is only hybrid SACD available). Hi-res downloads however are a rip off: More money is asked for bigger file. However, it's your money. I did my part to educate. Waste of time it seems.

[flyingdutchman]

SACD have multichannel support which is a plus and they are rarely more expensive than CD (often there is only hybrid SACD available). Hi-res downloads however are a rip off: More money is asked for bigger file. However, it's your money. I did my part to educate. Waste of time it seems.

Next thing you'll say is there's no difference between MP3s and cds. Nothing you say can convince that the lower you get with bit rate gives you still good sound quality while the higher the bit rate somehow makes no difference.

[mc ukrneal]

Next think you'll say is there's no difference between MP3s and cds. Nothing you say can convince that the lower you get with bit rate gives you still good sound quality while the higher the bit rate somehow makes no difference.

That's not what he is saying.

On this topic, too many people root their comments on 'their experience' and 'what sounds better to them'. The reality is that the ear is easily deceived. Composers knew/know this too. Karl, wouldn't you agree?  I liken it a bit to learning a language. When you first start off, you cannot hear all the pronunciation that is going on. But as you get better at it, you may start to hear the differences. Others never will hear the difference, but they will talk with expertise as if they speak fluently. Talking about sound is a bit like this. I too prefer to stick as close as possible to objective measures.

[Karl Henning]

I agree, indeed.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Next think you'll say is there's no difference between MP3s and cds. Nothing you say can convince that the lower you get with bit rate gives you still good sound quality while the higher the bit rate somehow makes no difference.

Obviously no one claims that "the lower you get with bit rate gives you still good sound quality." There is a resolution which is sufficient and further increases don't help. An audio format which contains frequencies beyond 20 kHz is analogous to a video format which contains ultra violet light. You simply can't hear it. (Actually, for most people the cutoff is more like 16 kHz, I think.)

I've occasionally gotten a hi-rez download when they charged just an extra buck or two (more or less out of curiosity). But I find it off-putting when they charge substantially more. Basically they are charging you more for one less stage of processing of the audio (resampling and noise-shaping down to standard resolution). It should cost less, if anything.

I remember hearing a story from the old days. The institution had an IBM computer. They called IBM to have it upgraded to higher clock speed for a huge sum of money. The IBM technician arrives to upgrade the system. Does he have a new processor board to install? No. He reaches into the CPU and flips a switch. "There you go!"  Same deal here.

[flyingdutchman]

That's not what he is saying.

On this topic, too many people root their comments on 'their experience' and 'what sounds better to them'. The reality is that the ear is easily deceived. Composers knew/know this too. Karl, wouldn't you agree?  I liken it a bit to learning a language. When you first start off, you cannot hear all the pronunciation that is going on. But as you get better at it, you may start to hear the differences. Others never will hear the difference, but they will talk with expertise as if they speak fluently. Talking about sound is a bit like this. I too prefer to stick as close as possible to objective measures.

I get your analogy, but also believe that the higher the resolution the cleaner and clearer you hear those differences in sound or pronunciation.  I'm transcribing interviews for my dissertation right now and I have to say that the cleaner the resolution, the easier it is to hear differences between words.  That is what I believe happens too with higher resolution release downloads vs cds

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

I get your analogy, but also believe that the higher the resolution the cleaner and clearer you hear those differences in sound or pronunciation.  I'm transcribing interviews for my dissertation right now and I have to say that the cleaner the resolution, the easier it is to hear differences between words.  That is what I believe happens too with higher resolution release downloads vs cds

Would you pay even more money for 36 bit, 768 kHz master? Even more for a 48 bit, 3,072 kHz master? At some point the resolution is sufficient. If you get a 24-bit 96 kHz master you are getting extremely high resolution, high fidelity reproduction of the thermal noise in the various resistors and transistors in the microphone pre-amplifiers.

There are well-defined scientific/mathematical criteria by which 16-bit 44.1 kHz is enough. My own experience tends to confirm this conclusion.