|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
116.96.44.32
I was thinking about getting into the high resolution audio fray using my PC. I was doing some research and found that it's recommended to buy some sort of USB DAC unit that supports high res audio. These range from less than 50 bucks to hundreds... I'm kind of not sure where to begin.Can someone explain to me why I need a fancy external DAC, if most modern PCs are equipped with integrated audio chips adhering to the Intel High Definition Audio standard which supports sample rates of up to 192 kHz and 32 bit depth?
If I plug decent headphones into my PC's headphone jack (which is a current generation Mac Mini) and play 24/96 FLAC files using VLC, should I be able to hear an improvement over standard 16/44? If not, why not, and why is an external DAC better?
Also, I have an Onkyo TX-8255 audio receiver (it's completely analog). Would I hear an improvement if I ran the signal from my PC's headphone jack through the receiver? (it doesn't have a line out). Sorry if these are stupid questions.
Edits: 09/26/23Follow Ups:
No need to worry about getting deep into the PC Audio weeds. As such, I fully concur with Whell's following post:
"If you're just trying out a PC - based audio setup to see whether or not you like it, there's no need to spend much money at all!!"
"1) If you have an old, unused laptop sitting around, it really doesn't take much PC horsepower to turn a PC into a music machine. Repurpose the old PC for that purpose. Or, buy a used PC from a reputable reseller. For example, there's a reseller on Amazon selling refurbished HP Intel i5 mini PC's with 8 gig RAM for $90."
"2) For PC playback, VLC works well. Foobar 2000 would be better to the extent that it's a bit more "tweakable" to optimize the audio signal path. Both VLC and Foobar are free and open-source audio playback apps. Also, if you decide to use Foobar, you can experiment with WASAPI: https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_wasapi."
"3) On an older PC, older versions of Windows (no earlier than Win 8) might be a bit more responsive unless you have at least 16 gigs of RAM. Even better if it's in your comfort zone, some favors are Linux are designed to run fast on older PCs. And most Linux distributions are free to the user, though donations to support development are encouraged."
"4) To get started, no, you absolutely do not need an external DAC. Yes, you can run your soundcard's analog output to the analog input of your receiver. Are the results always optimal? No, but a decent soundcard can still produce very good results."
"Go for low cost first. If you like what you hear, you can then opt for incremental gains in sound quality. At that point, you can consider options like an external DAC. If you're using a standard form-factor desktop PC, you could even opt to upgrade the sound card. Less expensive than a stand-alone DAC, and there are even "audiophile" or pro audio internal PC sound cards that sound excellent and tend to be cheaper than stand-alone DACs."
"Keep us posted on what you decide."
As an aside, if you end up wanting to go with a separate DAC, for a good price to value/quality ratio, Schitt DAC's would be a great place to start.
-Mike
IMD has the reputation of being the bad guy when it comes to distortion. In the sense that it causes treble/high range harshness.
If you end up with a DAC that has audible IMD, I bet you will end up hating that harshness/brittleness in the treble. Makes it almost impossible to listen to without fatigue in a few minutes...
Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Mark Twain
Great value in budget DACs.
Gsquared
Edits: 02/22/23
If you're just trying out a PC - based audio setup to see whether or not you like it, there's no need to spend much money at all!!
1) If you have an old, unused laptop sitting around, it really doesn't take much PC horsepower to turn a PC into a music machine. Repurpose the old PC for that purpose. Or, buy a used PC from a reputable reseller. For example, there's a reseller on Amazon selling refurbished HP Intel i5 mini PC's with 8 gig RAM for $90.
2) For PC playback, VLC works well. Foobar 2000 would be better to the extent that it's a bit more "tweakable" to optimize the audio signal path. Both VLC and Foobar are free and open-source audio playback apps. Also, if you decide to use Foobar, you can experiment with WASAPI: https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_wasapi.
3) On an older PC, older versions of Windows (no earlier than Win 8) might be a bit more responsive unless you have at least 16 gigs of RAM. Even better if it's in your comfort zone, some favors are Linux are designed to run fast on older PCs. And most Linux distributions are free to the user, though donations to support development are encouraged.
4) To get started, no, you absolutely do not need an external DAC. Yes, you can run your soundcard's analog output to the analog input of your receiver. Are the results always optimal? No, but a decent soundcard can still produce very good results.
Go for low cost first. If you like what you hear, you can then opt for incremental gains in sound quality. At that point, you can consider options like an external DAC. If you're using a standard form-factor desktop PC, you could even opt to upgrade the sound card. Less expensive than a stand-alone DAC, and there are even "audiophile" or pro audio internal PC sound cards that sound excellent and tend to be cheaper than stand-alone DACs.
Keep us posted on what you decide.
3)
It's the quality of the recording and mastering that determines the vast, VAST majority of the sound quality. A decent recording that sounds great at 192kHz will also sound great at 44.1kHz, regardless of whether one can hear subtle differences. A less-than-decent recording that sounds mediocre at 44.1kHz will also sound mediocre at 96kHz IME.
Edits: 02/21/23
the very *same* recording is sometimes emasculated in terms of dynamics for CD issue.
Case in point is the soundtrack from Rogue One . The opening track in 96/24 begins with an incredible startle-the-crap-out-of-you SLAM! that is utterly missing in 44/16. Can you tell which is which? The impact is simply gone with 44/16:
I may be misunderstanding but....
Why do both of your Audacity screen shots show the file to be 24/96 PCM?
I thought the second one was supposed represent "CD quality" or 16/44.1 PCM.
Your second Audacity screen shot image appears to be the same file but it looks to me that you may have simply Amplified and/or added Compression to it in order to make your point.
Just wondering.
One is from playing the actual download while the other is the unsaved recording the Qobuz app playing the 44/16 copy on the same laptop.
but it looks to me that you may have simply Amplified and/or added Compression to it in order to make your point.
I never do that! Like you, I use an HRT Linestreamer for needle drops and capture at 96/24.
No need for speculation here either. All you need do is listen and/or do the same monitoring with the two Dec 2016 versions found on Qobuz.
Those don't even look like the same song. I have examples of terrible normalization/compression as well. But I agree with mlsstl that it's not the fault of the 16-44 format. I have CD rips and 16-44 downloads that favorably compare to their 24 bit versions. There are subtle differences in the sound but the dynamics are fairly close. You condemn CD mastering engineers in your other reply but that's a mean spirited insult to those who do a conscientious job of producing excellent CD versions.
You need to get out more. :-)
Those don't even look like the same song
Amazing isn't it? This isn't like DSOM where there are 1200 versions.
But I agree with mlsstl that it's not the fault of the 16-44 format. I have CD rips and 16-44 downloads that favorably compare to their 24 bit versions.
Theory is great, but I live in the real world where CD versions are always inferior to modern 24 bit masters. I purchase that which is available, not what *could be*.
Record labels leave 24 bit masters alone and manipulate CDs for the masses as they see fit. I'm with mastering engineer Brian Lucey ...
"Let's just sell the 24 bit files at the mastering session sample rate, not higher and not lower, and call it a day? Too easy perhaps for the creativity of modern commerce."
"Theory is great, but I live in the real world where CD versions are always inferior to modern 24 bit masters. "
The details matter here. You are probably comparing an old CD release against a modern 24-bit master / remaster. If the 16-bit CD and the 24-bit download are both from the same master [remaster] they will sound very close in sound quality.
It's more about the recording / mastering quality vs the CD / file format resolution.
Both were originally released in Dec 2016. Not exactly "old" from my perspective. Sample both on Qobuz.
If the 16-bit CD and the 24-bit download are both from the same master [remaster] they will sound very close in sound quality.
And the CD version has been vastly compressed.
It's more about the recording / mastering quality vs the CD / file format resolution.
I'll rephrase that. It's more about what you find in real world of studio releases. ;)
I think your insistence that all CD versions have been compromised is a bit of a stretch. You're painting yourself into a corner. And the few examples you've shown seem to be cherry picked. So I captured some Audacity waveforms from two albums showing their 16-44.1 (CD) version and 24-96 version. No particular reason for selecting the artist or track, just picked a couple albums that came up first and chose a track that showed some reasonable dynamic range for popular music.I did some "level matching" using the Amplify function so that the differences weren't about RMS loudness but about their dynamic differences, which is what I think we're still talking about. The matching isn't perfect since I didn't spend much time on it, but it's close enough for comparison.
The first album, Crowded House - "Crowded House", shows the difference between the 16-44 and 24-96 versions of "I Walk Away". They are very similar in dynamic range as far as I can tell. Listening to them I prefer the 24-96 version but it's not a dramatic difference by any means. What was interesting is that the CD version technically has more dynamic range than the hi-res version, mainly in the percussion punches and cymbal hits. It actually looks like they limited the peaks in the 24-96 version so that they could put out a hi-res version that is louder than the CD version at the same amplifier volume level. It's not compression, but it's not "true to the source" either.
.Next album is Joni Mitchell - "Blue", with a comparison between the CD version and the 2021 remaster hi-res version of the song "Blue". Again, the differences in dynamic range are fairly subtle, with the CD version having at least as much, if not more, dynamic range. What's curious is that it looks like they've altered (fixed?) the phase between the CD and 24-96 versions.
.I agree with you that many CD releases were ruined by compression as part of the loudness war but to say that all CD releases are inferior to their 24-96 counterparts and were mastered by "morons" is unfounded.
Edits: 02/26/23 02/26/23
I think your insistence that all CD versions have been compromised is a bit of a stretch.
For your first example, look at Discogs for history. It wasn't until 2014 - twenty eight years after the original recording - before a remastered 192/24 or 96/24 PCM version was released. Highly unlikely this was originally recorded at 192/24 in 1986. One of those upsampled albums to make it look better.
Similarly, your Joni Mitchell recording was from 1971!
I'll fine tune my observation a bit.
All CD copies where the master was originally captured in high resolution 24 bit suffer in fidelity to one degree or another when dithered and downsampled to Redbook after the fact.
With old stuff, it's a crap shoot. I'll take the original format!
One of the reasons I used the Joni Mitchell - "Blue" 2019 remaster is that it was done by Bernie Grundman using high resolution digital processing. So using your logic it should be markedly more dynamic than that CD version. Especially since the original 1971 version, mastered by David Crosby, isn't considered an engineering masterpiece by any means. Mr. Crosby even admitted to making some mistakes in the production.
The fine tuning of your hi-res - to - CD downsampling observation still doesn't acknowledge that there are plenty of CD versions that are far from being compressed to death and are actually quite good.
So using your logic it should be markedly more dynamic than that CD version.Not at all. For any digital version, you are always subject to limitations of the 1971 recording. You cannot create what wasn't captured.
...still doesn't acknowledge that there are plenty of CD versions that are far from being compressed to death and are actually quite good.
Never posted that and agree. Telarc's CDs (using the original Soundstream 50/16 tapes) have lots of dynamic range. Then they switched over entirely to using SACD.
I'll return to Brian Lucey's take (on modern digital recordings):
"Let's just sell the 24 bit files at the mastering session sample rate, not higher and not lower, and call it a day?
I no longer have a CD player. All of mine were ripped to the music server ten years ago. :)
Edits: 02/26/23
I'll see if I can find a more recent hi-res album that I also have the CD version for comparison.
I rip CDs to a NAS drive but have kept the CD library. I still use a CD player as a transport and enjoy searching through the CD shelves for something I haven't listened to for a while.
I also really enjoy the hi-res albums I've purchased. They aren't necessarily better sounding than the CD rips or 16-44 offerings but the sound quality seems to be more consistent than many of the earlier CD releases. Some of the digital remasters are excellent. And I agree with Mr. Lucey's take on digital albums. Sell the hi-res masters and let the consumer decide if they want to resample or not. But I also understand the problem of digital copies being shared and not contributing to the artists or production costs.
and enjoy searching through the CD shelves for something I haven't listened to for a while.I use "song mix" for rediscovering old friends. :)
But I also understand the problem of digital copies being shared and not contributing to the artists or production costs.
That question is independent of file source. While the media server lives on the Synology NAS in the background, the entire digital music library of rips and downloads alike fits on this:
Edits: 02/26/23
Perhaps you found a one-off CD (or a few) that sounds like crap compared to the 24-bit remaster.
How many have you compared? And was the CD also from the same [possibly newer] remaster?
Most of my 24-bit 'hi-res' downloads sound only marginally better than my CDs and that's only if I'm deliberately listening for it.
I don't look at and compare the waveforms when I'm listening to music ;-)
Perhaps you found a one-off CD (or a few) that sounds like crap compared to the 24-bit remaster.
No need for speculating as I'm happy to answer questions. Hint: the 44/16 version is available to you. Now.
How many have you compared? And was the CD also from the same [possibly newer] remaster?
I have numerous sets of favorite music reaching back to when I was 13 in vinyl, CD and 24 bit downloads. The differences are not uncommon. Which makes sense to me. I suspect that *most* folks would really not like having such a wide dynamic range. Gets too quiet!
Most of my 24-bit 'hi-res' downloads sound only marginally better than my CDs and that's only if I'm deliberately listening for it.
I think that is largely genre related. My best recordings in terms of dynamics are all classical/show/acoustic. The 24 bit version of Katy Perry's "Witness" doesn't improve upon dynamics vs a CD. Nor do several other fairly recent pop recordings I have.
I don't look at and compare the waveforms when I'm listening to music
*Looking* not required when the hairs on your arm stand up! with the music. Seriously, invest two minutes and listen to the 96/24 version of "He's Here for Us". This is Stravinsky-style fun dynamics.
How many have you compared? And was the CD also from the same [possibly newer] remaster?"I have numerous sets of favorite music reaching back to when I was 13 in vinyl, CD and 24 bit downloads. The differences are not uncommon. Which makes sense to me. I suspect that *most* folks would really not like having such a wide dynamic range. Gets too quiet!"
You didn't really answer my question here so let me rephrase my main point and the question.- Were the CDs that you compared against your 24-bit downloads from the SAME master or SAME remaster? In other words if the 24-bit download was from a more recent remaster was this also the case for your CD? Or was it an older CD?
I don't hear huge differences between well recorded and mastered 16/44 CDs vs say a 24/96 download if they were both from the SAME modern master.... regardless of genre.
As mentioned many times in this forum by several people, it is the recording / mastering that makes THE biggest difference in sound quality, not whether the playback is at 16-bit/44.1-kHz from a CD vs a 24-bit/96-kHz download or higher.
Edits: 02/25/23 02/25/23 02/25/23 02/25/23 02/25/23
This isn't like Classic Rock with endless remastering like last year's version of The Beatles Revolver where there are 818 versions!
Let's return to this post to find the answer . Again.
"Both were originally released in Dec 2016."
At the launch of the movie in December 2016, both the 24 bit version and the CD version were released simultaneously as you find on Qobuz. The 96/24 flavor is The Master and the CD version is the record label's diluted version derived from that very same (and only!) master for folks listening on their phones and Wave Radios. From day one, I purchased the download from HD Tracks. Like I do with other favorites. Say the beautiful track on Star Wars The Force Awakens called Rey's Theme where you find very natural dynamics.
For decades the "Holy Grail" was if we could *somehow* get a copy of the original 30 ips master tapes. The beautiful thing about modern recordings is that we can do just that - get the original 24 bit digital master that has not been downsampled, dithered to 16 bits and otherwise neutered for market sensibilities.
Once again, our experience is different likely because of the music we choose. I have a 192/24 umteenth remake of Led Zeppelin II that likewise is cleaner than the CD I once owned but still is lacking in dynamics and first octave bass.
I've compared some of my 'hi-res' downloads vs my own CD rips and none exhibit the level of gross compression that you presented in your cherry picked Rogue One soundtrack comparison in your first post.You keep referencing what I refer to as audiophile 'special effects' tracks in your examples. This is not 'real world' for most listeners.
I still assert that 'hi-res' downloads can sound a little better but in most cases [not your cherry picked examples], 'hi-res' is not hugely different than 'CD-res' provided both came from the same master.
Edits: 02/26/23
This is not 'real world' for most listeners.
is the real world for those who enjoy classical. Another favorite is Orff's Carmina Burana that shares an equally wide range. That adds to the emotion of the music.
I'm looking forward to hearing Symphonie Fastastique live in May. :)
What's the dynamic range compared to CD ?
According the articles linked below, unless E-Stat's listening room is dead quiet and he listens at ear-damaging levels, the difference in effective dynamic range between 16-bit CDs and 24-bit hi-res playback is quite small. Now, the two authors may have a bias against 24-bit music files but they do provide an alternate take on the benefits or necessity of hi-res.
Robert Triggs/Soundguys: Noise and bit depth
What you think you know about bit-depth is probably wrong
Christian Thomas/Soundguys: What's good enough
High bitrate audio is overkill: CD quality is still great
*theory* and practice are one.
They are not.
And yes, the more gradual aliasing filters with high resolution recordings enables a smoother and more extended top end.
E-Stat, I'm not assuming anything. And I'm in agreement with your comment that "the more gradual aliasing filters with high resolution recordings enables a smoother and more extended top end."
But you seem to have it in for CDs and 16-44 music files in general. I'm saying that there's great music on CDs and 16-44 downloads, converted from excellent 24-96 masters, that aren't as crippled as you make them out to be, having been "manipulate[d]" and "neutered" by "morons". I think we can agree that 24-bit recordings and releases can be better sounding than their 16-bit conversions but you might want to temper your continued dismissal of CD/16-44 releases.
I refer to this speculation:unless E-Stat's listening room is dead quiet and he listens at ear-damaging levels ...
Lowest SPL level I record upstairs is 26.2 db and peak in the high 80s.
I'm saying that there's great music on CDs and 16-44 downloads, converted from excellent 24-96 masters, that aren't as crippled as you make them out to be...
Ok. Why not just use the master in this day and age? I asked Abe the following question but he declined to answer: what is a really wide dynamic range 44/16 recording you enjoy?
Ironically, the very first commercial digitally recorded music was from Telarc in 1978 using the Soundstream recorder captured at 50/16. Jack Renner wasn't happy with 44/16 at the top end.
Edits: 03/05/23
I'm trying to follow your logic, which seems to be that a 24-96 recording and master cannot be released as a 16-44 conversion and be any good. I wasn't talking about a 16-44 recording, I was talking about the difference in dynamic range (which is the topic of this thread) between a hi-res release and the corresponding CD release both produced from an original 24-96 master. I never said 16-44/CD releases will always be the equal of the 24-96 version, but I'm not buying your contention that all 16-44 conversions from a 24-96 master are ruined by default.My comment about ear damaging loudness levels to hear the differences should have been qualified. You're correct, the differences will be heard even at the levels you mentioned if the CD version was edited to produce something markedly different from the 24-96 version. But if the 16-44 version is mastered to produce a high quality CD release, the differences will be far less discernible if played at moderate loudness levels. There can be differences in the overall sonic quality, for reasons you've mentioned, that are discernible and can show the potential superiority of 24-bit hi-res.
I gave you an example that, given their differences in production, should have reinforced your point but instead, the CD version actually had higher dynamic range than the 24-96 remaster. I'll do some searching through my music collection and see if I can find a good example. I doubt I'll have an example of hi-res classical, so it will have to be another genre.
Edits: 03/05/23 03/05/23
I'll be happy to respond to anything I've posted. Quote text and I'll explain what I mean.
I gave you an example that, given their differences in production, should have reinforced your point...
I'll be happy to repeat why your example is meaningless:
"For your first example, look at Discogs for history. It wasn't until 2014 - twenty eight years after the original recording - before a remastered 192/24 or 96/24 PCM version was released. Highly unlikely this was originally recorded at 192/24 in 1986. One of those upsampled albums to make it look better."
Do you understand that once detail is lost you cannot recreate it? That's like recording an MP3 at 96/24 and expecting an improvement!
I'll do some searching through my music collection and see if I can find a good example.
Good luck. Abe wasn't able find any in his collection.
"Crowded House" was recorded to tape at Sunset Sounds and the reissue in 2014 was remastered from tape based on what I could find with web searches.
Are you saying anything recorded to and mastered/remastered from tape cannot be as good as a 24-96 digital recording strictly because the 24-bit recording has (potentially) more dynamic range? And/or that a comparison between 16-44 and 24-96 versions isn't valid if both come from a master tape?
And finding an album to compare isn't about there not being a valid example, it's just that I tend not to purchase multiple versions of an album. I guess I could pick an album that was recorded/released at 24-96 and see if there's a CD/16-44 download version and buy that.
"Crowded House" was recorded to tape at Sunset Sounds and the reissue in 2014 was remastered from tape based on what I could find with web searches.
It is unlikely it was recorded to tape in 1986 and the CD version was released at the same time. Digital recording was in full swing eight years after the first ones appeared. Kindly link to your source.
Are you saying anything recorded to and mastered/remastered from tape cannot be as good as a 24-96 digital recording...
I have a number of old recordings from the 60s and 70s that were remastered in high resolution. I find them superior in transparency and bandwidth to both the original vinyl and subsequent CD releases. But wide dynamic range is not what you typically find with tape based releases from that era.
You: "It is unlikely it was recorded to tape in 1986 and the CD version was released at the same time. Digital recording was in full swing eight years after the first ones appeared. Kindly link to your source.
This is what I found regarding the source of the Crowded House reissue:
Crowded House reissues
It doesn't mention the version I have specifically but he does refer to tape sources for the remaster.
You can't assume that because an album was recorded in the 80's it was recorded to digital. The transition to digital was happening but it wasn't universal, especially at Sunset Sounds. There are many examples of AAD and ADD CD releases.
You: "I'll be happy to respond to anything I've posted. Quote text and I'll explain what I mean."
OK, since you bring it up, these are excerpts in sequential order that pertain to comments you've made. I'll start with the OP's question and the response that seemed to irritate you in some way.
Liam (the OP) asked: "I was thinking about getting into the high resolution audio fray..." and "If I ... play 24/96 FLAC files using VLC, should I be able to hear an improvement over standard 16/44? If not, why not...?"
Jon replied: "It's the quality of the recording and mastering that determines the vast, VAST majority of the sound quality. A decent recording that sounds great at 192kHz will also sound great at 44.1kHz, regardless of whether one can hear subtle differences. A less-than-decent recording that sounds mediocre at 44.1kHz will also sound mediocre at 96kHz IME."
You: "While I don't disagree, overall the very *same* recording is sometimes emasculated in terms of dynamics for CD issue."
You: "Record labels leave 24 bit masters alone and manipulate CDs for the masses as they see fit."
You: "Recording labels only use morons for CD projects."
You: "Theory is great, but I live in the real world where CD versions are always inferior to modern 24 bit masters."
You: "...the original 24 bit digital master that has not been downsampled, dithered to 16 bits and otherwise neutered for market sensibilities."
You: "Which has absolutely ZERO to do with what you find in the real world of choices made by recording engineers."
I didn't include the posts that you were responding to for the sake of brevity. Please try to refrain from hyperbole and absolutes and instead try to explain what you really mean. I'm looking forward to your responses.
"But, yes, a lot of things come from cassette, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they sound bad. I mean, you can get very good sound quality from cassettes if they're recorded and played back well. "
We're even further apart if you believe a cassette master is remotely capable of wide dynamic range!
In any event, remastering old rock "home demo" tapes just is NOT going to provide you with anything even approaching what is possible today.
It remains telling that after days and days of posturing, you are unable to find even a single CD with impressive dynamic range. ;)
"We're even further apart if you believe a cassette master is remotely capable of wide dynamic range!"
You make me laugh. I knew you'd focus on that statement. If you'd actually read the interview he was talking about the alternative and unreleased takes for the deluxe set.
I find it telling that you rarely respond to questions about your snarky comments. So at this point there's no sense in trying to discuss things with you; you've made up your mind about CDs. Good for you. I'm surprised you haven't purged your digital library of all 16-44 rips and downloads. :-)
still can't find a single CD with dynamic range!
The question was answered long ago.
I haven't given up. But I haven't had access to the basement to peruse my CD collection. Besides, based on your comments, there won't be anything that suits you unless it's recorded to 24-96 or higher. I'd have to find a 24-96 recording and hi-res release with an accompanying DDD CD or 16-44 download release. That I could do online. I'm assuming you'd prefer classical or opera for the comparison, given its typically higher dynamic range than rock/blues/pop. Perhaps a jazz album.
Still waiting on your replies...
I'm happy to respond to anything I've posted. Quote some text and I'll explain if you're unable to understand.
Choose anything! 1980's rock most likely will not provide anything better than the mediocre example you've obsessed over.
Obviously, wide dynamic range is a new concept to you as you can't think of a single example within your collection!
What did you mean by these comments?
"Record labels leave 24 bit masters alone and manipulate CDs for the masses as they see fit."
"Recording labels only use morons for CD projects."
"Record labels leave 24 bit masters alone and manipulate CDs for the masses as they see fit."
Self explanatory! When a recording is initially made at 24 bits at high sample rates, the download of the same resolution maintains the original quality. You purchase the master. Have lots of those. For general distribution for a CD media, the labels must dither, downsample and most often compress the results. Since most folks are content with MP3s anyway, that is sufficient for the mass market.
"Recording labels only use morons for CD projects.
What you always hear about qualitative differences between 24 bit masters and 16 bit versions is that it is always about the quality of the master. In my experience with dozens of samples, the downsampled and dithered version is always inferior.
The comment was tongue in cheek based upon the observation that it seems the record labels always use their "B" team for working on CD projects since the results is inferior to the original.
It's OK, E-Stat, we'll never agree on the minutia. We seem to have gotten side-tracked chasing after ephemeral qualifiers. The premise wasn't that there weren't any trade-offs converting a 24-96 master to 16-44 format, the premise was that 16-44 is always going to be much inferior because of how the label is marketing product. All Abe and I were trying to do is have it acknowledged that there are some labels that do care about their 16-44 releases.
All Abe and I were trying to do is have it acknowledged that there are some labels that do care about their 16-44 releases.
After more than a week, neither have provided a single example which began your "but the dynamics are fairly close" assertion.
The articles are not based on someone's "theory" but solid factual math of digital bits. It's math like 1 + 1 equals 2, not 1 + 1 sounds like 2 or maybe 1.5 or 1.8 in practice.
Edits: 03/02/23
...but solid factual math of digital bits.absolutely ZERO to do with what you find in the real world of choices made by recording engineers.
What's a favorite 44/16 recording in your collection with wide dynamic range?
I have vinyl recordings with more dynamic range than lots of my CD collection.
As Yogi said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is."
Edits: 03/02/23
and that somewhere is with facts. And then all the variables of your world will alter the ideal outcome. But you start somewhere.
I haven't read your linked articles yet but I'll toss this out there for starters.
The best anyone will achieve in a 24-bit or 32-bit DAC in the real world is around 21-bits of resolution.
The dynamic range of 44/16 is 96 dB -- more than enough room for all the "slam" one needs to knock you out of your seat. The difference between those two screenshots you posted has next to nothing to do with the chosen format, but rather was an intentional choice on the part of the record company. Who knows why -- maybe to make the hirez version more desirable. Maybe to make the CD more listenable in a car. Whatever, but it's not because of the format.
Recording labels only use morons for CD projects.
I tend to agree with you. So many of us get hung up on the greatest bit depth and highest sample rates but in the end it's about the quality of the recording.
Sure I can hear very subtle differences between 16/44.1 vs 24/96 but only if I'm sitting there critically straining to hear such differences. Who does that when trying to enjoy music? Oh, audiophiles do! I'm guilty too but after a lot of messing around with 'hi-res' it comes back to the quality of the recording.
P.S. I looked at your profile and I'm wondering if you prefer your Gustard X26 Pro or the Chord Qutest ? Or are they simply different and how so ?
A recording that I've always enjoyed has been Ronnie Magri's "Shim Sham Revue - Music of New Orleans Burlesque Shows of the 30s, 40s & 50s." I stumbled across it as a 256K MP3 download many years ago and I've never bothered running down the CD. I've also not found it on Qobuz.However, as a great example of small ensemble jazz from the period noted, and a lot of fun to play -- it certain grabs your attention, in the past I've taken it in CDR format as one of the many pieces of music I use to audition equipment. Sales people and others have never once failed to think it is a great recording and have never suspected that it is a "crappy MP3."
Now, that's not to say it might not sound even better as a full-fledged CD, but it does illustrate that for many of us, it's about the music, not the file format.
Edits: 02/22/23 02/22/23
"...but it does illustrate that for many of us, it's about the music, not the file format."
Or the crash of movie sound effects or audiophile test CD's.
Left channel, left channel, right channel, right channel, clap, clap, bang, bang!
Of course they do!
24/48 and things begin to get pretty good, IMNSHO.
"Reality cannot exist because it cannot keep up with the lies on the Internet."
It's not just the technical specs on sample rate and bit depth that matter. In fact, I would argue that the analog output stage can make an even bigger difference to sound quality. As such, you have to ask yourself if the wimpy analog output stage on your computer from its 3.5mm jack can match that of a quality outboard DAC - or even an outboard headphone amp for that matter. Why do some people attach an outboard headphone amp to their computer? To get a more robust and dynamic sound that the wimp analog stage in the computer cannot deliver.
Make sure you are not hearing any distinct audible noise from the PC during silent parts of music you are streaming via the PC..i.e., you are not getting lots of noise and distortion due to poor design. Also, you may not be able to hear differences at those levels since it requires training without which it can be very difficult. Even compression artifacts can be difficult to perceive since they may be content specific and not always present. An external DAC is not always "better" if you cannot hear a difference.
I would not recommend using a PC. I think you'll be happier and more successful with a Raspberry Pi. They are not that expensive and will provide a better and more flexible solution. There is a lot of good free software (And the software is what it's all about) out there as well as a lot of help on these forums.
Edits: 02/21/23
That is a numerical specification. It doesn't say anything about accuracy.
DAC's do differ in jitter performance, IMD, linearity etc.
Maybe comparing these two will help
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-apple-vs-google-usb-c-headphone-adapters.5541/
This is the Apple USB DAC. This is what $9 gives you and it is fair. Probably it performs like the onboard audio.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-m500-mkii-review-dac-hp-amp.29468/
This is what a well designed outboard DAC does. Lower noise floor, better IMD, better linearity. Technically a better performer.
Assuming the 16/44.1 and the 24/96 are the same (mastering), there are people who can hear a difference but they are few in number (talking unsighted testing). BTW don't forget to set your mini to 96 in the audio midi panel to avoid resampling.
"Would I hear an improvement"
Compared to what?
The Well Tempered Computer
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: