Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?
Abraxalito , I agree though my suggestion a few comments back was ignored , lol , regarding Tonian Labs recordings which are by far the most realistic sounding percussion recordings I’ve heard to date , Hi-res streaming , DVD audio , HDCD and what have you , ive listened to countless excellent recordings, with some of the very best talked about in audio media and online that come close to Tonian labs 16/44 recordings but so far no equals . Borrow or buy a copy and listen for yourself. |
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html 44.1/16 is enough for any stage in the signal chain, even more so at the playback. Some oversampling at the mastering/AD/DA conversion -sure. 24 bit is because of lazy/sloppy engineers. Good recording/mastering is key. The above article by good old Monty still holds. Human ears and the the sampling theorem haven’t evolved over the past couple of years. |
Going purely based on research evidence, the evidence suggests that Redbook is not sufficient, but 24/96 is: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296 The paper is not perfect (nor the studies it references) and even its justification for 24/96 is quite weak, but with rapidly shrinking storage/bandwidth costs, there is not a lot of reason not to standardize on 24/96. Somewhere I have a link that showed slightly better timing discrimination in some subjects, with a bandwidth just slightly over 20KHz, but virtually no benefit to going much higher than this. This would also suggest Redbook may not be perfect for everyone, but 24/96 would cover everyone. You can always take away information at the playback stage if you are worried about distortion at >20KHz. |
Indeed there are numerous problems with this AES paper and one of them is raised in the discussion: how can one train for unknown causes? The author’s answer is not convincing to me. https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591 Metaresearch can also be burdened with a publication bias; the positive verifications of a hypothesis are more likely to be published than the negative ones. The author writes "The effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect". In the statistical analysis the bias can easily outweigh such observations. Finally, the microscopical population that can hear slightly above 20khz (most adults cannot above 16kHz) is easily served by the Nyquist limit of 22,05 kHz. Anything higher can exacerbate the ultrasonics intermodulation. If reason ruled, all cars should have a factory speed limit of 70mph. But this would impinge on personal liberties, right? Fortunately, in audiophile audio there is no collateral damage, other than that to the wallet and to the ears of an odd dog. |
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies. While this can be shown to occur environmentally, as we are talking a playback system, the playback, if the goal is accuracy, should never add something at playback that was not there at recording. The question, is, should we avoid the potential for euphonics, for the sake of technical accuracy? Technical accuracy shuns ultrasonic modulation to audible frequency. That doesn't mean that some (or even a lot) of people won't like it, even if it is near impossible to control. Even allowing that as a creative control is warranted. I think on balance 24/96 makes sense, even if not technically warranted by current research. So back to the ops question, Yes, 24/96, properly implemented appears to be all we need, and anything higher carries no benefit. |
I have no opinion/knowledge about technicalities of high resolution but did notice that some recordings (SACDs and one 24/96 download in my case) do seem to sound consistently better. Could it be that mastering, or whatever other step before the actual final product, is better in those cases? In other words, when knowing that they are working on high resolution product, do engineers do a better job so it finally translates into better-sounding recording for me while not directly related to the sampling/resolution numbers? In the end, I end up with an impression that all those higher numbers mattered while it was really care that went into it? I hope it is not too much out of the thread topic. |
atdavid There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies. >>>>>Emphasis on “to my knowledge.” Never is a very long time. Nevertheless, I think you would have been more convincing if you had said, “never ever ever.” |
Damn, geoffkait, atdavid is going to win this. Until now, you were untouchable in posting the same thing over and over. He is breathing behind your neck. Step up your game. You do not want to be outdone in something you trademarked. Give us some directionality, freezing, and.......was there anything else? |
The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems. I am sorry, but this is not at all correct. If what you said were true, you would getting muted sections of tracks all the time. Also, it would be impossible to get accurate rips from CDs using software like dBpoweramp with AccurateRip. Finally, accurate rips would sound phenomenally better than what you could get from a CD transport. While often do sound better, there are other reasons for this other than this alleged 50% missing data. CD transports are inherently accurate. If they were not, it would be impossible to read text data from a CD drive in or attached to your computer with any reliability. |
porscheracer120 posts11-28-2019 4:19am The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems. I am sorry, but this is not at all correct. If what you said were true, you would getting muted sections of tracks all the time. >>>>>>Actually, you do not get muted sections all the time. You don’t get muted sections any of the time. The scattered light problem produces distortion because the system substitutes null bits when it doesn’t know what else to do. That particular distortion disappears when scattered light is eliminated. You’re just used to hearing the distortion, that’s all. But it’s always been there. I’m not saying scattered light is the only problem with CD playback. Also, it would be impossible to get accurate rips from CDs using software like dBpoweramp with AccurateRip. Finally, accurate rips would sound phenomenally better than what you could get from a CD transport. While often do sound better, there are other reasons for this other than this alleged 50% missing data. >>>>>>I did not say scattered light was the only problem, remember? So, would you accept that 25% of the data is missing? This is all system dependent and listener dependent. I can guarantee you will hear what I do. But if only you could hear what I hear with my ears. CD transports are inherently accurate. If they were not, it would be impossible to read text data from a CD drive in or attached to your computer with any reliability. >>>>>See, that’s my point? They’re not inherently accurate! They are ALL susceptible to seismic vibration, internal vibration, scattered light interference, vibration of the CD itself. The computer analogy is not correct. The CD player is not like a computer. That is the oldest false argument in the world. You were fooled into a false sense of security by the marketing team at Philips and SONY - “Perfect Sound Forever!” |
I think I just figured out how to tell when atdavid is lying. His lips are moving. 😬 Most people are blissfully unaware there is a problem with stray laser light. It’s the biggest cruel joke the devil ever played on naive audiophiles. Much less what it sounds like or what to do about it. But I do. https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Minimizing_Stray_Light_in_Everyday_Optical_Systems/a63577 |
See what I mean Porscheracer. GK's target market is people who don't think for themselves. Therefore, instead of providing information on C2 error rates, discussing the SNR of the detection system, discussing the off-angle rejection ratio of the optical system, or frankly anything relevant, he posts a link to a generic article in an attempt to make it look like he knows what he is doing, and yet, he has not even done the most basic of tasks, defining the nature of the problem. |
Yup Porscheracer, he will triple and quadruple down. He could simply provide easily measured error rates, jitter from CD players common in the audiophile world, heck anything. Nope, more subterfuge. Next he will probably give us the reasons why amplifiers cannot provide 250db SNR. GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough. |
Not having read *every* post i like the direction of the OP and Geoff.... first, most of what we like and don't seems to be locked in at recording and mastering. Listen to some 50 year old Verve and Mercury recordings - superb in 16/44. Now listen to Supertramp Crimes of the Century on CD. I rest my case. Red book (16/44) gives us 96 dB snr vs most analog (which remember, we like) at 60-70 with a tail-wind. The problems must lie elsewhere - yea, they exist, but not in the fundamental coding. A recording engineer can easily squander 20dB of SNR by getting the level check wrong. That, to me, is the big benefit of 24/96 -- in the studio it allows for another 8 bits of mistakes before we can hear it :-) No, seriously. Time domain errors have little to do with coding format, and we still have not tamed those. Maybe Bob Stuart is right, maybe wrong, but he's chasing at lest one of the right topics. I just want good, simply recorded, simply produced 16/44 -- badly done 24/96 just reveals all the awful warts. Heck, i just heard "ripple" in 192 mp3 (!!!) sound fantastic (on a pretty superb system). Case closed. G |
atdavid GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough. >>>>As is often you case with you your memory is either failing or you’re lying. Take your pick. I never refuted anything of the sort. Eat more fish! 🐟 🐟 |
porscheracer No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don’t even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. >>>>That seems highly improbable since I haven’t been wrong since 1985. How about 20%? Let’s compromise. You seem like a nice guy. |
You don't have to accept it since there is lots of data on CD error rates, and certainly 25% is not "errors" or missing. Unfortunately some people have a disconnect from reality. One can only assume that a person who makes such a statement does not truly understand CDs, and hence does not realize that 25% of the data on a CD is error correction, but confuses this (or tries to confuse others) that it is "missing" data. porscheracer123 posts11-28-2019 1:53pmNo, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. |
I have a DCS Vivaldi stack, which includes the upsampler with suitable other equipment. Anyone who cannot tell the differences on upsampling between normal cd and 192 and at each between level, either needs new ears, or better equipment. Stating 24/44.1 is all any human can hear if done well is just nonsense, from someone who has not heard the difference. As per usual. If you haven't heard what is possible - don't state ridiculous facts. |
The issue is that in general people think that a format that CAN store more dynamic range is better.. Think of why it is the music (songs) that is analysed for their softest and loudest passings. And not saying oh you have the song on format X that has dynamic range of Y dB. Therefore your song/music has Y dB.. ..no it doesn’t work like that.. (So you can put a recording that has a dynamic range of 20 dB. On a format that has 100 dB of dynamic range.) My recording will still have *only* 20 dB. It doesn’t matter on what format it lays on. If it is 16 bits or 24 bits. Another factor is that music in its own has naturally a dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB. So if we have a format that can contain the whole dynamic range of the music we have then we are done. But most of us thinks that more is better. A analogy is when you parallel parking your car. The car is the whole recorded music and the space you want to park your car is the format. If you have a big space it is easier to park but if the space is 10 m long your car (music) is still 4 m and there is 6 m of unused space. You don’t have a longer car because the space is longer.. :) |
Generally speaking, vinyl has almost always provided more dynamic range than digital. There are a number of reasons for that. One of course is the Loudness Wars (remastering) that have progressively sucked the life out of the music, mostly for CDs but also for SACD, BLU RAY, SHM-CD, SHM-Blu Ray and hi res streaming. To the point where you see dynamic ranges that look like a flatline on a very sick patient’s chart. Oh, well, I guess music industry executives have to eat, too. The previous poster has a very good point. Putting overly compressed music on high density format discs is like shooting BBs with a 45. Other reasons why dynamic range is relative poor on digital playback systems include - but are not limited to - ye olde scattered laser light interference, very low frequency and induced vibration and the self-inflicted flutter and vibration of the disc itself, as I’ve oft posted. |
"Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192? " I have not heard many native 192! People have ripped to 192 and claimed 192, but they are not authentic, and on playback are easy to spot as being inferior. DCS upsampled to 192 is excellent. When I upsample to 384 (by mistake) I notice something is not right and realise I need to drop down to 192. It is NOT the same as upsampling rips via dbpoweramp, which is pretty ineffective, which is again possibly why some people cannot tell the difference and then make false claims of the situation. Dull cds are brought to life. For example 10cc recordings are a bit on the dull side, but they are lifted by the DCS, to now being very acceptable, and closer and closer to vinyl. |
When I say 50% of the information is missing what I mean by “information” is that dynamic range is doubled and resolution is increased considerably. I am not (rpt not) trying to say there is twice as much data available to the DAC as was on the CD 💿 Obviously, the data on the CD cannot be changed. But what can be changed is how the data is pulled off the CD. Yes, I know what you’re thinking - doesn’t Reed Solomon and the CD laser servo system take care of all the errors? 😳 We know, for example, the reason there IS a laser servo system in there in the first place is because the original designers were aware that the CD 💿 flops around while spinning, that the nanoscale laser beam cannot stay on the nanoscale data spiral without help. It helps but is not 100% effective. IT CANT KEEP UP. The laser beam is an out of control locomotive roaring down the track! 🚂 So when you add up the increase in dynamic range, the increased bass performance, increased air and increased signal to noise ratio SNR you get 50%, if your system can handle it. And I’m being conservative here. Who wouldn’t want to DOUBLE Dynamic Range? It’s subjective. Put those books down! Use your ears. And yes, I know what a lot of people will say, “but my system already sounds fabulous!” There is no substitute for signal to noise ratio. |
www.2l.no has plenty of free hires and redbook samples of all kinds. It also shows the source format, almost all studio DXD. It is easy to compare the same piece of music at all sampling/bit rates. Ask somebody to assign new ABX file names (do not check file sizes) and play them as long as you like- blindly. Note your ABX test choices. This double blind self-test will tell you the truth. About the hires and/or about yourself. |
VI, Your 50% information theory, which was previously 25% is a fantasy not a reality. Unless your CD is severely damaged, the multitude of control system and data correction methods on a CD player take care of all the things you claim and eliminate effectively all the errors with few exceptions. Modern CD players also buffer and reclock so you can't even claim timing issues. VI, if you had any, and I do mean any data to back up what you claim, that data very easy to produce, then you would be broadcasting that from the rooftops. You do not. You just have an unfounded hypothesis. Basically a fantasy about the missing "information". |
@atdavid You are completely right. I have worked with developing optical media testers for the industry for 10 years. When it was thing. And I got scared when as a newbie to this forum reading about this misinformation about the optical media. Just think on the simple fact that we developed and had for many years ago, servo systems that not only read but also write at 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x, 52x and higher speeds!! Why should we suddenly today have issues with servos to track at 1x for listening on music if you do not have a lot of scratches in the disc. |
I offered 25% simply as a sop to see if anyone would bite. Would you bite at 10%? Alas, I’m correct. I know I am, too. You can bark and scold til you’re blue in the face. 🥶 I’m from the future. I only come back here to see if anyone is getting smart. And for the jokes. My future, unfortunately, cannot be yours as you are hung up. None so blind that will not see. |
I think what VI is saying is that he is pretty much making up any numbers he is using and his statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated marketing numbers. His posts can be effectively in this thread, like most threads ignored. They are essentially advertisements targeting people looking for magic solutions to whatever ails them. You can pretty much guarantee that any reply VI will make to this post will be nonsensical, likely condescending, and using any number of tired jokes stolen from other people. |
