|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.53.180.112
In Reply to: RE: Benchmark weighs in on MQA posted by Mr_Steady on August 17, 2016 at 12:17:43
as to describe to the rest of the asylum what are the sonic difference between 24/96 and 24/192?
I know I'd be glad to know what the differences are! Where should I begin listening to hear the most obvious difference?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Follow Ups:
Finer resolution. More definition. More micro detail, and thusly sounds more realistic.Have you ever listened to a 15ips reel to reel tape? I never have, so that's a real question. Did you notice any type of difference between that and a CD? Would you be so kind as to give your impressions to the rest of the asylum?
Edit; I realize these are three adjectives describing the same thing, and that may be all hi-res does better, but to people who spend more that $50 on cables and AC cords you would think that's huge.
I will be honest with you. It's enough of an improvement for me that I have decided to rebuild my music collection with 24/192 files as much as I am able. I keep seeing very high end dacs like say a used Meitner UA1 for sale, but I make the choice that I would rather have $4,000 in 24/192 files than a new dac. YMMV.
------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 08/18/16
Cool! Enjoy your new music collection!
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
"Have you ever listened to a 15ips reel to reel tape? I never have, so that's a real question"
I have. That 15 IPS tape was not transparent compared to the live microphone feed, which sounded better. But this was some years ago and it was 1/4 inch tape, so it could be that newer machines and tapes are more transparent.
When I buy downloads, my custom is to purchase the highest available resolution. My experience is that 192/24 versions often sound better than 96/24 versions. (There were a few cases where the 192/24 recordings were made from an analog mixdown of 96/24 session tapes, where the gain was minimal.) My experience has been that record labels offering the highest quality recordings offer their downloads at 192/24 as well as 96/24. This is a clue that their engineers are trying for the best possible quality and that they are marketing to audiophiles looking for the best possible reproduction.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We recorded in the studio at 30IPS. 2" multitrack or 1/2" 2 track masters. Very close to the live control room feed. Todays digital using the best dacs even at 16/44 come close to that sound but not there yet. I do not see any great sonic advantage to so called hi rez, especially at the premium prices they are charging
Alan
If all recordings were 24/96 multi-channel, I would rest content! ;-)
My experience has been that record labels offering the highest quality recordings offer their downloads at 192/24 as well as 96/24. This is a clue that their engineers are trying for the best possible quality and that they are marketing to audiophiles looking for the best possible reproduction.
More likely they are offering 96k and 192k to maximize their profit by selling at two different price tiers. Those of us who suffer from audiophilia nervousa can be baited into spending another 7 bucks or so, just so we don't feel like we might be missing out on something if we buy the cheaper 24/96 version. Meanwhile the labels still have something they can sell to the more price conscious shoppers who won't shell out $25+ for an album.
I haven't really compared the 96k and 192k downloads of the same album because I haven't wanted to buy twice. But I've downsampled a few of my 192k albums to 96k for experiment's sake, and I'll be damned if I can consistently tell a difference. Occasionally the 192k sounds a hair different, usually smoother, but these moments are fleeting and not very repeatable.
Try it yourself and report.
I can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit files (and proved it to myself using foobar's comparator). I am hard-pressed, however, to distinguish 44/24 from 192/92, nevermind 96/24 from 192/24.
That said, I don't doubt those that claim to hear the difference. I recall that Charles Hansen (whose ears and gears I trust) said that the real benefit from quad-rate sampling is that it eliminates the need for brickwall filters. The files I used for my testing were downsampled from 192/24.
Lots of different algorithms to downsample. Some good, some bad
Alan
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: