|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.178.31.161
16/24 bit test results:
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
Follow Ups:
I have not done any comparison of 16-bit Vs 24-bit version of the same recording. But the SACD/XRCDs that I have compared with their regular CD version (separate disc, not hybrid versions), the mastering seems to have made the difference to making the music sound more cleaner and smoother. Most XRCDs using the JVC process, though expensive seems to be well worth. An example in my collection is the XRCD for Cannonball Adderly's Things Are Getting Better. I found the XRCD version in our local library and was stumped by the quality of the sound and music. I have the SACD version of the same and the XRCD sounded a but more "airy". The SACD was more smoother, but a bit darker.
Maybe it is time for the music industry to move on from Hi-Rez to Hi-Qual-Master and maintain it at that.
Maybe it is time for the music industry to move on from Hi-Rez to Hi-Qual-Master and maintain it at that.
But that would leave the manufacturers of new audio gear out of the picture. They want to sell us new equipment, new formats, and have us buy the same ole albums yet again..... 'cuz there's hardly anything new worth buying. ;-)
I have not found that SACDs or DVD-As sound any better with my relatively low level of DACs, than a good CD. The mastering is the most important part of the sound.
I do have several rock SACDs which are a pointless rip-off: Kinks, Boston, etc.
Some companies seemed to be selling the format rather than the content which is a bit fraudulent in my book. Much like a Blu ray movie with a Dolby Digital soundtrack, which Lions Gate, etc. have done.
On a foolish impulsive moment I downloaded ZepIII from Qobuz and frankly it is sh....t.
I know Page did the remastering and all that but honestly it is a dismal effort and I can't believe it sounds as bad as it does. It sounds like an old recording and has no life at all.
Just to see if my ears were playing tricks I got out my Japanese release, the replica vinyl covers and all, and they are dynamic as hell, clear, amazing depth, a little hot maybe but my god they just sound like they should. I've been air drumming and guitaring for the last hour.
I have the classic vinyl box set but still don't want to play them until I get a really good deck to do them justice.
The only reason to buy hires is if it was recorded in hires like 2L and Blue Coast records do.
CD, perfect sound forever maybe just true with many new releases.
Cheers
This is one of the most preposterous posts I have seen here.
I will suggest to you that either your have damaged hearing or your system is broken.
A load of absolute rubbish.
Maybe I need more resolving speakers or amps.
Maybe the front end is not good enough.
Maybe the CD player is just good.
Maybe I'm deaf
Have you got the Japanese CDs?
Check my system out and recommend how to improve please.
Thanks, and no offence taken by the way.
Sorry to come off so harshly.
But to be honest it boggled my mind that you could call the 2014 Zep III remaster "lifeless". It is not just boggling, but beyond puzzling.
I do not own the Japanese CDS, and I may be wrong but are you referring to the SHM box set? If so, it is not even close.
I am sure you have a very nice system.
I am also assuming you purchased the 96/24 download? Even if it was the 44/1 version, "lifeless" would be a stunning comment unless there was an issue with your CD player.
Hi,
Puzzling, yes, I agree.
I have the 24/96 download and the Japanese are the 'original' mini lp replica versions not the newer SHM versions which I've not heard.
It's all down to our own hearing in the end and our systems too. Mine is in the asylum systems with pics if interested.
Out of interest I still can not get cd rips using XLD to sound better than the CD player.
I have a few other hires downloads that also don't sound as good as the CD. Don't ask me why. Thankfully most do sound better, some incredibly so.
Cheers
You have a very nice system.
I listened to Zep III twice through today, and lifeless would be the last word I would use for the Pagey remaster.
You are hearing what you hear.
As far as getting XLD rips to sound as good as your disc player...well..that is a hornets nest. There are so many ducks to line up. I stopped comparing. I have a server based system for the convenience and I can get it to sound as good, but not really better than my disc players. I am happy with that.
I do hear the benefits of high rez when done right, and that is obviously the big plus of a server.
BTW, I don't agree that hi rez is only worth looking at if natively recorded. Archiving analog tape to the highest possible digital resolution absolutely makes a better end product.
Cheers.
I remember the fight the Boston Audio Society experiment started here. If you cannot A B. the difference, then the difference you hear is illusory, as is all high res.The emperors Old clothes. HDTRACKS IS A CON, AND YES, I HAVE BOUGHT FROM THEM.
Edits: 06/29/14
Actually, the BAS experiment was worthless. It was not a proper scientific experiment on a number of dimensions. It proved nothing. It should never have been published.
This has all been discussed before multiple times. Do a search.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Excellent report. DSD is still excellent despite being 1 bit.
Actually I bit DSD gets converted to 3,4 or 5 bit pcm in almost all dacs
Alan
My set up is DSD all the way.
And PCM converted to DSD sounds better than the original PCM File.
I know you don't believe it, but that's OK.
> > And PCM converted to DSD sounds better than the original PCM File. < <
Your definition of "better" must be real "special".
Meaningless. The biggest myth is that bit depth makes a bigger difference then sample rate. Nonsense. I know this from my own high rez location recordings.
As a matter of fact many mastering engineers know this good and well.
DSD is excellent despite being 1 bit.
Bottom line is there is no reason for the 44.1 Khz sample rate to exist any more.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have an NOS dac using AD1856 chips which can only handle 16 bits. In terms of sampling rate, however, the chips can go over 100 Fs. I have listened to a lot of 24/96 music, which comes out at 16/96 of course, and the sound is glorious. You get all the hires magic with the 96 KHz sampling rate, not the bits.
Spot on. I will take 16 bits and 96 Khz over 24 bits, 44.1 Khz any day.
I have about a dozen CDs with corresponding 44.1/24 downloads and they are UTTERLY indistinguishable.
Even Bernie Grundman, the great mastering engineer uses an ADC that works in 192/18 bit. Yes that is right. That is how they did the Eagles remasters.
Wow! Seems like a pretty thorough report.
I've done my own testing in my home system using an Alesis Masterlink digital recorder and I know that I can't tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings of LPs. Nor can I hear any difference between 96-kHz sampling and 44.1-kHz sampling.
Best regards,
John Elison
Having explored early on, and with excitement, the possibilities offered by higher sampling rates and bit-length, I have reached the exact same conclusion after blind-testing.
I cannot reliably tell the difference between Redbook and allegedly better formats. Maybe high-resolution is useful at the recording stage but for playback, it's a complete waste of time.
In itself this fad wouldn't be a problem if it didn't distract from the real problem: why are there so many mediocre sound engineers out there?
The problem is in the recording and the processing (too much of it, usually), not the format.
All this blather about bit depth and rate is smoke and mirrors distracting us from the real problems with recording and production.
But it is easier to label something 'hi-rez' or to say it's 24/96 or some other magic number than it is to hire, promote, and pay for excellent sound engineers.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
And HDTracks thinks 24/44.1 is Hirez
We've all been conned.
/
... it's consistently miss-represented here (and abroad) as being "superior" by simple default alone.
In the process, the true meaning of "higher-resolution" as it pertains to all forms of audio reproduction, has become diluted, butchered even ...
True hi-resolution reproduction isn't simply about quoting larger digital numbers, or incorrectly associated CD (scapegoat) with all the evils pertaining to past digital reproduction, that's being far too dismissive of the real world issues surrounding digital/audio reproduction as a whole.
Higher-resolution digital, done correctly, can sound realistic & captivating. I've heard that reality countless times. However, I've also heard far too many crappy sounding "hi-rez" recordings, while ironically, some of the very best sounding digital recordings I've heard to date - were originally recorded @16/48 and played back @16/44.
tb1
The difference is how much are you willing to spend for all the crap that is out there
Alan
'This way to the egress'.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
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: