Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Return to Hi-Rez Highway

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?

108.185.14.195
Posted on June 2, 2015 at 08:59:44
Jon L
Audiophile

Posts: 6062
Joined: April 6, 2000
 I noticed HD Tracks is selling some albums in "audiophile" 24 bit 44.1 KHz, some at quite high prices (e.g. new Melody Gardot album) and some at more reasonable price (e.g. Leonard Cohen "I'm your Man"). Has anyone compared these to the CD versions? I would be willing to buy them even if they are not truly hi res as in 96kHz as long as they are remastered well with improved SQ.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on June 2, 2015 at 15:05:42
13th Duke of Wymbourne
Audiophile

Posts: 2794
Location: Orange Co., Ca
Joined: September 19, 2001
 I expect these are not remastered but taken from CD master before it is reduced to 16-bits. As studios work at 48kHz it would be better if they offered the 48kHz 24-bit files but maybe it is easier for the label to grab the CD master file rather than go look for the original master. If that is true it would make an interesting experiment to see if those extra bits make a difference.

Regards
13DoW

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on June 2, 2015 at 19:52:15
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The extra bits definitely make a difference on many recordings. Some people feel that they are worth more than increasing the sample rate.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on June 9, 2015 at 18:06:19
coli
 d

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on June 14, 2015 at 17:09:50
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 Most DACs don't achieve much better than 21 bits so you won't be getting the full benefit of the extra "bits" in that sense. Where you get an advantage is that dithering (with optional noiseshaping) is not required as part of the downconversion process to achieve 16 bit Redbook specifications.
The dithering process is where problems can be introduced - the amplitude of dither and distribution of noise power in the available bandwidth can all impact the decoded sound.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on August 14, 2015 at 07:29:12
DSG
Audiophile

Posts: 319
Joined: March 9, 2005
 Can you explain why; does it have anything to do with the accuracy of the sample rate?

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on August 14, 2015 at 07:49:29
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 There are multiple answers, according to one's particular audio religion:

"Because people hear differences and prefer the extra bits."

"Because the theory of PCM modulation and the more general information theory of which it is a part, says that more bits, suitable utilized can better represent analog signals in the digital domain."

"..."

I am being polite. My first reaction to your question was to dismiss it as a trolling post.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on August 14, 2015 at 11:26:09
DSG
Audiophile

Posts: 319
Joined: March 9, 2005
 When I post on this or any other forum, I do so in good faith in all respects.

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 22, 2015 at 15:17:40
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I don't buy into the 24 bit 44.1 rates. The expanded noise floor is at the bottom of the dynamic range as "0" is still "0" and the theoretical 96 db is just that, theoretical. If you can hear some advantage I am happy for you. I doubt you can even buy a good 16 bit converter anymore, can you? A dynamic range of -144 db to -96 is of little consequence.

If on my own recordings I can get to -75db noise floor I am happy, and that is without a noise gate.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 23, 2015 at 12:23:22
cfraser
Audiophile

Posts: 3208
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Joined: April 30, 2000
 I would rather have 4 extra bits of depth *if they're used* than a doubling of the sample rate. Like HDCD tries to do. 44/20 would do me fine; I have some 48/20 stuff and that seems to be about the practical limit I can use here (for bit depth).

I regularly berate Warner, the "sound haters", about their foolishness, for one like 96/16 movie audio tracks instead of the more common 48/24 (they like to use 48/16). If the audio quality isn't good enough to have more than 16 bits of depth, why is it good enough to sample it at double the "normal" rate? That's my thought on it anyway. 96/24 would be nice though, if deserved.

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 23, 2015 at 15:11:14
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I can easily hear the advantage of 44.1 to 96khz, but cannot hear a diff from 44.1 to 48. I have a hard time at 96khz to 192k, but I know that mathematically it is more accurate, just that I can't hear it due to my age and my gear not being good enough. I get pretty suspicious of marketing claims lately. For me to go 24 bit, the recording must start there, no remastered to 24 bit will I buy.

Jitter control would be more of a factor to me. Not much to be gained with 24/44.1 or 24/48 into a marginal converter, and now some hear an improvement with 2 of the $49 AudioQuest usb filters in use in their computer slots. How about a Schitt Wyrd? Wow. Since if that is the case to do one without the other would seem pointless.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 23, 2015 at 17:31:48
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I had already expressed my opinion on 24/44.1 land 24/48. No sonic advantage to me only Marketing posturing.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 23, 2015 at 20:48:43
cfraser
Audiophile

Posts: 3208
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Joined: April 30, 2000
 But 20 bits is the real/practical limit that the human and the best gear can utilise.

I'm sure you know why gear uses 24 bits instead of 20, it doesn't mean the extra 4 are actually "heard" per se (they're not, usually and usefully). However, our listening systems are in many cases A/V computers, and the data is processed, and making it 24 bits in calculations helps prevent rounding errors. It has nothing to do with "hearing" the extra 4 bits. When the music data is stored on a computer, each 20 bits of data would take up 24 bits anyway, all the digital systems are set up for bytes, not bits, so might as well make it 24 bits to start with, plus it impresses the rubes (32 even more so).

Much current equipment processes multiples of 48kHz much better than it does 44.1kHz or multiples. Sad but true. Multiples of 48kHz is much more commonly used in production nowadays, I doubt too many are using 44.1kHz multiples for *master* production.

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 25, 2015 at 02:14:01
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 The difference between 6 extra khz of sampling is not as discernible as the remastering EQ that was done for the new issue. I also do believe in multiples of sampling rates as that has been proven to sound better. We also know that playback devices that ram buffer the data stream have often sounded much better when properly clocked, something no one knew in the beginning of the CD. There is just more going on than just worrying about the sample rate and bit depth.

That article from the late Roger Nichols about the initial pressing problems of 2 VS Nature for Steely Dan changed my whole perspective of the music process from start to delivery. There are too many hands in the soup. I am also sure they will be new things we will learn about downloads as we have about using dirty USB power for our computer DACs.

Everything matters, but just more outside sample rate and bit depth choices. In IMHO, which often isn't humble anymore with all the marketing hype that takes place. So now I buy my music from places like BlueCoast Records, Linn Music, and eClassical where I know the original tracking rates. I do love the 2496 and 24/192 downloads I've bought and even my own ears can hear the diff. After that it comes down to what am I willing to pay for.

I have not done DSD downloads as my AT&T download speed of 12-20 MBPS is not conducive to "fast" downloading, but that is MY problem and not the industry. I will get there as BlueCoast is doing their best with their high quality products and promotions to entice me. These markets are small, but I know here I am getting all there is to hear.

To other companies who do downloads I hear more "different" than really "better". It is all subjective anyway. You hearing may be excellent and your gear way better then mine and you can easily discern and like the changes you hear, which is all it is about anyway.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 26, 2015 at 15:12:04
cfraser
Audiophile

Posts: 3208
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Joined: April 30, 2000
 Oh yeah, the source quality matters the most.

I was just talking about where *I* prefer the bandwidth be spent. You can digitize crap at the highest resolution imaginable, to the point that it's analog!, and crap sounds like crap. I was more commenting on what I see as marketing silliness i.e. higher numbers = better.

The bitrates you already have from your ISP already make me jealous, by a fairly high factor too. I've been meaning to ask Abe all about his service: I don't think such rates are even available to any "regular" person in Canada. His rates are as far from yours as yours are from mine, and I don't live in the boonies either!

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 27, 2015 at 02:51:27
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I was not thinking that it was possible for someone to be slower than 12-20mbps than me when I have friends just north of Atlanta running 80mbps, but they have fiber in their nicer subdivisions than the copper we have here. Our subdivision is only 16 years old and you might have thought AT&T might be more forward thinking and put fiber in for what services would be coming down the road.

They chose not to do that and just paid a recent fine for limiting bandwidth to customers who are now streaming more and more. If their CFO actually knew anything and listen to his engineering people he might have rethought the fiber issue. Then with U-Verse it also comes along the copper making things even worse.

I know enough about all of this to be dangerous, but too many bad business decisions will just slow down the music business' only growth model...downloads.

I never thought anyone would be slower than 12mbps.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1?, posted on September 27, 2015 at 16:27:20
cfraser
Audiophile

Posts: 3208
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Joined: April 30, 2000
 A lot slower here, almost a 30-year-old area. I can see what people around me could possibly be getting max (wifi scan!, shows available rates and which mode they're using) and it's not pretty. The ISPs throttle and compress (video), reduce monthly "bandwidth" alotments, etc. to get the most revenue/customers without having to spend.

All bitrate tiers are sold here as "up to" xMbps, which technically/legally means zero is within the range. Seriously, I was paying for a high bitrate and wasn't getting near the tier max, so went a tier lower, and then again, and again, and I still had the same bitrate! For a lot less $$.

We have plenty of available "tiers" where you'll get less than 12Mbps (e.g. 3/6/10Mbps are common). But then again, anything less than a sustainable 40Mbps would not make me change the way I do anything, as it would be a step down, and I won't do that as long as I am able. In new developments, or more likely condos with "forced" service with a provider, 50Mbps and even 100Mbps are available. I've never heard of higher in Toronto, but I don't keep up that much as it's not available where I am.

 

studios work at 48kHz..., posted on September 27, 2015 at 16:42:03
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2012
 In the studios where I've assisted, probably 90% are at 96 kHz, unless there is a specific reason to do 48 or 88.2. YMMV

WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

Page processed in 0.026 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]