Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?
It's really difficult to compare resolutions with different masterings, delivery methods, sources, etc. I have hundreds of HI-rez files (dsd, hi bit rate PCM, etc). I have to say that even 24/44 is probably revealing the best a recording has to offer. Obviously, recording formats, methods, etc all play a huge role. I'm not talking preferred sources like vinyl, sacd, etc. I'm talking about the recordings themselves.
Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD.
no reason to bother above 24/96 or below 16/44.1 but.... the truth is no one really knows about any specific file you play -what's it's history?and this debate has been going on forever most 24/96 files you will encounter weren't recorded at 24/96 but upsampled that's one of the reasons why modern audiophiles are so neurotic about bitrate some people cheat! the only way is to get all the versions compare them and find the best sounding version in your system. i miss cd's...you would play a cd knowing it sounds good not looking for flaws only enjoying music. look at us now more than 20 years after ,still trying to figure out how to play digital music maybe ripping our own cd's is better than streaming? ...maybe not paying for music got us this punishment
If the recording is good and your gear is also good (it took me a lot of time to get it right and I still have work to do), PCM 44.1/16 sounds incredible.
If you get redbook to play on its full potential, is good enough.
For me, another issues play a MUCH bigger role on sound quality and music engagement. To mention a few: gear quality and synergy, AC conditioning, accoustic treatment, location of speakers and listening position, recording quality, etc.
Depends on the original recording and who is mastering. That said I seem to chase the best sound of the music love so I guess I’m a mark for higher bits.
CD sound quality is relatively independent of bit rate and sampling rate. For starters you’re not even getting 50% of what’s on the CD anyway. There are too many serious issues with CD Player performance, after all these years. The CDs themselves are great. Increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is kind of a scam to get more money. Not unlike overly compressing CDs. It’s all orchestrated so they can stay in business. Hel-loo!
Aw come on, geoffkait. Its cute the way the kids buy into this stuff. Let 'em parrot their dogma, jive their jargon. Endlessly bantering misunderstood terms back and forth is after all mostly what makes the audio world go round. People start seeing the Emperor has no clothes, next thing you know there goes the neighborhood. Not to mention how much easier it is than having to learn how things actually, you know, work.
I can confirm that 16/44 mastered and played back properly sounds awesome. Nyquist–Shannon had some things figured out, but it took awhile for the mastering and hardware to catch up.
so true. If you want a valid opinion on true sonic quality, ask someone who is 20 years old who hates the music rather than someone who is 40+ and knows every version, release and master. hearing acuity is usually inversely proportional to the investment in the best that your own money can buy system becomes. When it mattered, 24/96 sounded great...home recordings, LP rips and digital sources, especially higher pitched things like triangles or cymbals, and sound reflections. Higher rates didn't seem to matter and lower rates and lower bits were noticeably and increasingly 'Fisher-Price'. Everyone agrees that 4K OLED TVs look better than most CRT or even plain HDTV because we all have equal access to corrective vision instruments to get to a baseline. yet, there is no sonic equivalent...just more money in a speaker that a dealer the same age or older tells you is better. what is shrill or 'not audibly different' to some can be the opposite to others. it is true we see 'color' differently, in terms of clarity that's a pretty objective measurement. Most sound engineers are 50 or older...and all claim perfect hearing...
Depends on where the high sample rates occur in my experience. I run all my audio through computers and find that upsampling to very high rates for the processing phase (equalizer, crossover, expander etc.) produces much cleaner results, even though the output is downsampled somewhat for the soundcard. But as far as actual source material goes I've compared 88.2k or 96k recordings with 44.1k or 48k and I don't hear much difference at all. 16 vs. 24 bit depth isn't all that obvious either. The quality of the recording process seems to be the dominant factor.
Yes, it’s simply a scam (or ongoing business model if you prefer). I have decades of experience to prove it. If the recording industry cared, really cared about sound quality, they’d make sure it was recorded and mastered properly right off the bat.
As it is, no one in the industry gives a toss save the odd artist like Mark Knofler, Steely Dan and of course Pink Floyd. Most don’t give a stuff and simply trust the producer to futz it up any way they want, ie anyway they think it will sell. Often it’s just a question of following the current, often moronic knob twiddling fashion of the day.
Neil Young is one of the very few to ever speak about sound quality (but that’s another story). Before you go shelling out for any remasters just consider that last detail.
It all starts from the source (mastering process) regardless of format. I have recordings in DSD that easily trumps their low resolution counterparts. Some of the 24bit XRCD’s I own are simply outstanding, in contrast the 16bit/44.1kHz file of same track sound lifeless.
Why bother debating, just find the best recording of your favorite artist and enjoy!
As the components and parts that support the given A to D converter chip are upgraded by a knowledgeable person, with good powers of discernment, the missing differences come back on line and are noticeable.
Korg is not there to make you a reference grade piece.
A knowledgeable audio tech with aspirations in high end and the will to do so, can get int your Korg, analyze it, and then correct the circuit to bring those missed differences back on line.
The Korg is not a perfect black box, it is a faulted complex device, like all of them, from everyone.
Right now, one good guess in the right direction, is that the seldom found Ayre A to D converter is likely to be among the very best.
A little off topic: I bought a Korg MR-2000S studio recorder to digitize my vinyl collection. I made several test recording all PCM 24 bit: 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 and 192 kHz. I then compared the recordings to the original vinyl and each other. I could not hear a discernible difference between the 24 bit 96 khz recordings and the original vinyl. I also could not hear a difference between the 96, 176.4 and 192 khz recordings. I could hear a difference between the 44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96 khz recordings. So I recorded all my vinyl in PCM 24 bit 96kHz. So for me 24/96 is fine.
CD sound quality is relatively independent of bit rate and sampling rate. For starters you’re not even getting 50% of what’s on the CD anyway. There are too many serious issues with CD Player performance, after all these years. The CDs themselves are great. Increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is kind of a scam to get more money. Not unlike overly compressing CDs. It’s all orchestrated so they can stay in business. Hel-loo!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
