CD quality versus Studio Quality. When configuring my DAC I can't really hear any difference.
Wondering if others hear a difference.
Mike
Wondering if others hear a difference.
Mike
16 Bit 44100 or 24 Bit 192000
- Thread starter 63pontiacgp
- Start date
Yes, I can hear a difference between the two. It's subtle but there is more detail with the 24 bit file, both 96 kHz and 192 kHz.
However, the 16/44.1 CD quality files sound good as well. It's interesting to me that regardless of the bit depth and bit rate, a poor source results in poor sounding music regardless of the digital spec.
However, the 16/44.1 CD quality files sound good as well. It's interesting to me that regardless of the bit depth and bit rate, a poor source results in poor sounding music regardless of the digital spec.
I hear a difference--more detail, smoother, and none of the digital fatigue I get with 16/44.1kHz. (I hear a distinct and very faint "sawtooth" type of roughness in higher frequencies in such things as percussion and drums; once heard, I can no longer unhear it, as it is very unnatural.) So I try to get at least 24/96 to reduce that as much as possible. Better DACs also make 16/44.1 more livable, but most are beyond what I can afford right now.
Genre of music? It seems to me that the concept of “faithfully reproducing” the natural timbre of musical instruments is more relevant for violins, oboes, trumpets, etc., vs. electronic synthesizers and software that is sometimes used by producers to create and/or alter (and/or deliberately distort) some pop music recordings. We have a benchmark for what a recording of live classical music should sound like, based on hearing classical music performed live in its intended venue (i.e., symphony hall or opera house) – with no electronics involved. (Recognizing that there is some variance in hall acoustics.) I know what a violin sounds like, but I don’t know what a synthesizer or DAW sounds like.
Provenance of recording? Garbage-in / garbage-out. An old poor-quality recording (e.g., 30+ year-old recording, or CD rip) won’t be magically improved by delivering it on an SACD or 24bit/192kHz FLAC file. (OTOH, remastering a good-quality analog recording from the original tape might improve audio quality compared with a 30 year-old CD. For example, Heifetz’s 1955 performance of Beethoven Violin Concerto in D (RCA Living Stereo) sounds surprisingly good on SACD – i.e., better than some early digital recordings, but not as good as modern SOTA recordings.)
Additionally, the quality of the playback system, and listening habits of the consumer (e.g., background listening vs. focused listening) are factors in the relevance of hi-res recordings. If someone mostly listens to music via earbuds and/or while driving a car, it will be difficult to discern subtle differences in audio quality.
Moreover, there have been advances in the last 30 years in digital technologies for audio and video recording, such as HD video and surround-sound, resulting in new ways to enjoy music that 30+ year-old digital technology (Redbook CD) can’t deliver. There are many newer classical music recordings that were captured in hi-res surround-sound, and in a growing number of cases classical recordings feature HD video. Video is essential for ballet, extremely beneficial for opera, and IMO enjoyable for classical concerts. There are excellent Blu-ray audio/video recordings in each of these genres. Ultra HD classical recordings are slowly becoming available.
My Oppo UDP-205 supports almost all digital music and video formats. Examples include CD, SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, hi-res PCM downloads, hi-res DSD downloads, etc. Stereo and surround-sound. Therefore, I’m not restricted to only a subset of available formats. Given that I have the ability to play a wide range of digital formats, why should I buy a recording that has been down-sampled to 30+ year-old digital storage technology (i.e., CD), if the original recording was captured in hi-res (i.e., DSD or 24bit/192kHz)? Whenever available, I’ll choose a hi-res deliverable for modern hi-res recordings.
When someone asks “Why buy hi-res”, I turn the question around and ask “Why not?” Assuming that the original recording is high-quality and was captured in hi-res, why not buy it in the format it was mastered in (if available)?
Bottom line, I often enjoy modern classical recordings that are delivered via SACD, Blu-ray, and hi-res download.
Last edited:
twiiii
Lunatic Member
You still have to have young ears no matter how old you are to hear the difference and your speakers need to have great tweeters and with good electronics driving them to hear the difference in a quiet room. I was playing around listening to hi-res the first time and it was easy to tell the difference, but I was using my Stax Lambda electrostatic headphones. Even with my run of the mill 598SE Sennheisers I could hear the difference.
Once you do hear the difference its easy to discern. Its like the difference between an early series One Cornwall and a series Two. Or a Bozak system with Z tweeters versus the Y tweeters. Altec systems with the older 806 driver and the 802 systems with Great Plains Audio latest diaphragms produced today. About the same difference as there was between a Stanton 681 EEE and a 881S. There are differences in all the comparisons, some larger some smaller, but all to be enjoyed. Remember you can have a 24/192 recording that was bad to begin compared with a superb 16/44.1 recording and the 16/44.1 will win every time.
There are some old Deutsche Gramophone LP's out there that sound better than there ADD reissues. Technology can't always displace the art in the recording process. That's why I can't ever claim to be a true Audiophile. Its all about the Art of capturing the performance.
Once you do hear the difference its easy to discern. Its like the difference between an early series One Cornwall and a series Two. Or a Bozak system with Z tweeters versus the Y tweeters. Altec systems with the older 806 driver and the 802 systems with Great Plains Audio latest diaphragms produced today. About the same difference as there was between a Stanton 681 EEE and a 881S. There are differences in all the comparisons, some larger some smaller, but all to be enjoyed. Remember you can have a 24/192 recording that was bad to begin compared with a superb 16/44.1 recording and the 16/44.1 will win every time.
There are some old Deutsche Gramophone LP's out there that sound better than there ADD reissues. Technology can't always displace the art in the recording process. That's why I can't ever claim to be a true Audiophile. Its all about the Art of capturing the performance.
Last edited:
So right Wildcat. I went through a succession of CDPs, never quite happy. When I got an Adcom GDA-700, that changed. I'm not an Adcom fan but this DAC has a wonderful sound. Much as Vinly reached a "Golden Age" after decades of development, I think Redbook went through the same process, and the later Redbook-only DACs could be superlative. I was not just hearing, but enjoying CDs for the first time. (Luckily I could afford it — $7 at GW.)
There are so many good points in your post, Robert. But I chose one which has nothing to do with technology. New recordings of Classical music may have great sound, but the music? I find the older performances far better. Conductors and orchestras worked together years, decades, perfecting the orchestra's "sound", honing their interpretations. Today, a celebrity conductor flies arrives the day before in his private jet, a morning of "rehearsal" then the performance. Offhand, I can't name a single modern performance of any piece I prefer to the best oldies. I must add there are countless modern performances I haven't heard.
I just picked up a Topping D30 and am playing MP3's from computer into the stereo system. I don't do a lot of digital (except in the car). I listen to records primarily. The Topping does to me sound better than the Modi it replaced. Spent some more time with it today and I do think that Donald Fagens The Nightfly does sound better at the higher setting.
Mike
Mike
