24 bit vs 16 bit myth

This is an interesting article, it talks about whether 24/96 is actually any better than 16/44.1. It discusses sampling rate as well as bit depth. In some ways the conclusion is that higher could be worse. I personally have done some a/b testing with stones cds versus one HD-tracks album I bought, and I did not hear it as better. A friend showed me this article and I thought of all the good people on iorr who have purchased HD-tracks.

It's a good read.

Matt

Quote
neylon79
24 bit vs 16 bit myth

This is an interesting article, it talks about whether 24/96 is actually any better than 16/44.1. It discusses sampling rate as well as bit depth. In some ways the conclusion is that higher could be worse. I personally have done some a/b testing with stones cds versus one HD-tracks album I bought, and I did not hear it as better. A friend showed me this article and I thought of all the good people on iorr who have purchased HD-tracks.

It's a good read.

Matt

Pray tell which HD-Tracks Stones Album you purchased?

It was Beggar's Banquet. I was so impressed with the 2002 remastering of the album I thought I would see if it sounded even better, and it is my favorite album from the Abkco era.
I'm pretty sure it was 24/88 that I got.
I didn't hear any difference between it and the regular CD. I assumed maybe I needed a better setup or better headphones to hear it, but this article as well as many it references towards the bottom of the page would say otherwise.

I tend to think that this hi-res audio idea has some emperor's new clothes to it, much like the high-end audio cable industry does. In my opinion, the record industry has been losing revenue not just due to piracy but for the simple fact that the CD and the computer backup of your cd eliminates the need to rebuy an album, or an 8-track of an album you own. So they remaster everything, and remaster again to see if you will rebuy. And when that tank is dry they try and get some repurchases with hi-res audio

The HD market consists of providers licensing the rights to issue high end versions of albums much like Mobile Fidelity and Masterdisk, et al, used to do with LPs and "gold" CDs. It's such a niche market that the sales therefrom are not going to "save" a record industry in dire straits.

I think we may, however, have maxed out the potential for improvement on these nearly fifty year old recordings. I found no discernable difference between the HD downloads and the SACD hybrids issued a decade ago. Even if I did I would be hardpressed to buy them AGAIN - at twice the money.

By the same token one hears what one hears, just like using high-end connector cables.

Didn't mean they were meant to save an industry, just a simple way to re-sell the same product in a different packaging, since the files are large but no more difficult to sell.

Agree completely with your other points

Quote
R
I found no discernable difference between the HD downloads and the SACD hybrids issued a decade ago.

Because they are the same. Recent HD-Tracks Stones are made from 2002 SACD's.
Same remastering.

When comparing 2002 CD layer to HD files you can notice a difference though, but on good headphone or good audio equipment. Generally speaking music in HD has more depth and is better defined. Because music has more room to "breath" it makes the sound less harsh and the listening more comfortable.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-12 00:33 by kowalski.

here we go again...

I'm glad for all the love being shown for the SACD's from 2002 though. They were beautifully done and sound great, even on just regular CD.

I still have to figure out whether I'm listening to regular or SACD through my new Blu Ray player!

Quote
treaclefingers
here we go again...

I'm glad for all the love being shown for the SACD's from 2002 though. They were beautifully done and sound great, even on just regular CD.

I still have to figure out whether I'm listening to regular or SACD through my new Blu Ray player!

In my experience most Blu Ray players select the SACD Layer not the CD format on Hybrid Disc's, I can't select the CD Layer when using my Sony BLu Ray, wouldn't wan't to anyway the SACD Layer is amazing, i'd waited nearly 9 years until I got a player capable of playing them and an AMP happy to distrubute the surround signals correctly and it was worth the wait

I Love SACD, Bob Dylan's albums sound unbelievable, Slow Train Coming is a fave.

Release them again ABKCO, i'd love a surround mix of Emotional Rescue/Tattoo from UMG as well.

This article has a few good points but they are overshadowed by the fact that sampling DOES increase what folks are able to hear in the HEARABLE spectrum of sound. I agree with him about the sub-sonic stuff that we simply can't hear. Thats besides the point. Its the high sample rates that really help.

16bit vs 24bit is all about DEPTH. When I'm recording a band, I can have a guitar sit at -18 and know that there is plenty of information in the channel incase I want to bump it up a bit. If I'm on 16bit, I need that channel to be as hot as possible because the floor on that channel is so much more shallow. So yes, 24bit is important, just not for a finished product.

He has good points, but its all about playback... If someone has a properly tuned system, high resolution files are a benefit. However, I still feel that 48kHz/24bit is as high a bitrate/resolution as I would personally care for in a digital collection. MOST people can't tell the difference between a studio master and the v0-mp3 that I've created for them to take home. I hear it, they don't.

48kHz/24bit vs vinyl, thats an entirely different deal, but 48kHz/24bit is a perfect sitting point, for me, digitally.

Good article overall. As least he concedes that we need a STANDARD for HD audio going forward!!!

I'm intrigued by this CD transport. If it works well, I don't need to download.
[www.thememoryplayer.net]

Quote
Toru A
I'm intrigued by this CD transport. If it works well, I don't need to download.
[www.thememoryplayer.net]

Looks very intersting but not the cheapest way to listen to digital music.