24/192 and why you should not care

[LordoftheRingsEE]

-- 20/88 is all we truly need.

[Face]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRingsEE

-- 20/88 is all we truly need.

Or 1/2.822MHz...

[mbovaird]

Originally Posted by kfr01

I get really confused by the people who essentially say 16/44 is the end-all-be-all of music formats.

I think part of the difference these people often ignore is that the redbook and the 24/192 are not always an apples-to-apples comparison. Often the 24/192 is straight from the studio master or is remastered especially for sound quality, not something that was processed for CD or radio many years ago. Thus, we often ensure we are getting the "best mastering effort" when buying the high res. version. Can we hear differences between a great studio master 16/44 recording versus a 24/192 version created using the same process, care, and hardware? Who knows. On the other hand, can we hear a difference between a CD pressed 20 years ago with a questionable ADC (and a questionable engineer) and a newly remastered tape-to-24/192 version using a very high quality and state of the art ADC? Easily.

Moreover, if I want an archive version, why wouldn't I buy the higher resolution version? To save a nominal amount of money? To save disk space? Hard disk space is so cheap it is practically free relative to the cost of our overall systems and the cost of the media we buy.

Moreover, if we want to transform an archived version into something else, it is nearly always better to have a higher resolution starting point.

As I said, I guess I'm confused by the whole argument. The technology is available, why not get the higher resolution version that is closer to analog?

+1

[Josquin des Prez]

FWIW: when I stream digital audio I have no idea what is 16/44 ripped CDs and what is 24/96 and 24/192 unless I go look at the files.

Two of my favorite digital albums are 16/44, one a digital download from eClassical and the other a ripped CD. OTOH, I have not compared a 16/44 and 24 bit version of the same audio. Nevertheless, there isn't a big enough difference I can hear that I would consider repurchasing anything I already have in 16/44 format. I don't think I will spend any more extra money for 24/192 audio. I think 24/96 sounds just as good.

I also don't really trust vendors selling 24-bit digital audio. How much of it is really high res sourced, and how much of it is up-sampled 16/44 source. HD Tracks doesn't say. Linn Records does claim their high res a downloads are master audio, but I thought one 24/192 album I got from them didn't sound that great. I don't know about eCLassical, but I'm happy with their 16/44 FLAC files.

I think high res digital audio has a very long way to go. For now, I much prefer analog for critical listening.

[LordoftheRingsEE]

Originally Posted by face

or 1/2.822mhz...

--------- DsD.

[MyPal]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

I think high res digital audio has a very long way to go. For now, I much prefer analog for critical listening.

Both 1/4" 15 IPS IEC 1st gen master tape dub & 1/2 speed master recording onto 200g/45rpm virgin vinyl. ANALOG RULES.

Why you should care!....I do hope digital continues to improve before that special something in analog is lost forever. So far, digital fails to capture the complete analog reality.

[mbovaird]

I love my Vinyl for late night listening. I must admit, it is glorious. But when I really want to crank it, I've heard nothing that can touch my EMM Labs DAC2X. The convenience of high res is a real plus too. Whenever I crank my vinyl, the cracks and pops and white noise, really get to me. I'm hopeful my new phono stage will improve things. I'm looking into a Audio Desk Cleaning Systeme....but I need to be convinced that records coming straight out of the Audio Desk will be perfect. Right now, I use a variety of things to remove static, clean my records, etc. and they are far from perfect. That being said, late at night, when the volume is lower, WOW....Vinyl is like warm butter on a bag of popcorn!

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by mbovaird

I can certainly hear a difference. Just compare the Eagles Hotel California CD to the Eagles Hotel California 24/192. Only a deaf man couldn't hear the difference.

Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

FWIW: when I stream digital audio I have no idea what is 16/44 ripped CDs and what is 24/96 and 24/192 unless I go look at the files.

Two of my favorite digital albums are 16/44, one a digital download from eClassical and the other a ripped CD. OTOH, I have not compared a 16/44 and 24 bit version of the same audio. Nevertheless, there isn't a big enough difference I can hear that I would consider repurchasing anything I already have in 16/44 format. I don't think I will spend any more extra money for 24/192 audio. I think 24/96 sounds just as good.

I also don't really trust vendors selling 24-bit digital audio. How much of it is really high res sourced, and how much of it is up-sampled 16/44 source. HD Tracks doesn't say. Linn Records does claim their high res a downloads are master audio, but I thought one 24/192 album I got from them didn't sound that great. I don't know about eCLassical, but I'm happy with their 16/44 FLAC files.

I think high res digital audio has a very long way to go. For now, I much prefer analog for critical listening.

Very good post !

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado

[radio times]

While it's true that I miss my best of the bunch stand alone Mp3 player, the feeling is fading as I remember it's compression and uselessness with opera and classical in general, so I'm back to CD land for good with a smidgeon of cassette tape when I have lazy ear. I brought a CD walkman the other day even, nice and spacious sound.

Of course a record deck would be superior, esp with jazz; a friend played me an ancient Bix record on an ancient record player and the clarity blew me off the chair.