Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

Here’s another thing to consider. Upsampling is guesswork. Upsampling generates data that can only be a guess as to what happened between samples.

Nope, newly generated data is fully constrained by the input samples. Assuming no violation of Nyquist of course.

Interesting replies. My audio engineering life has been with making amplification as transparent as possible. The more transparent the chain the greater the digital differences that can be heard. So I test out my work with music I have on a few discs that I know very well. Some redbook and some SACD.

For me, percussion and cymbals are the most telling of detail resolution. Shakers, gourds, cymbals have very complex non repetitive overtones that identify them as the instruments they are. Cymbals have sub-tones in the lower midrange that get lost in mixes, intentionally or otherwise. Since I’m also a professional musician (bass) I know their sounds from performing with them.

Orchestral violin blends are also difficult resolution tests. There are harmonics and sub-tones generated in performance that don’t do well in the digital domain at 44/16. But a jump to 24 bits helps and go to 88 or 96Khz and there is great relief from anticipating a colossal fight in the upper 2 octaves in complex passages.

I confess my CD collection was 99% issued before the turn of the millennium. Many are unlistenable on good gear other than for the music content. However some SACDs I have are truly enjoyable. RCA (Sony) reissue of Van Cliburn performances from 1958 and 1960 mastered from original tapes with no processing are a go to for me. First off it’s Van Cliburn. Second, it’s tape direct to disc 3 channel. The inner detail of orchestral passages is always surprising and a great relief to hear. Strings don’t fight with each other. I can hear tape artifacts, while not musical, are less unnatural and on the whole more enjoyable. It’s amazing what was done on an Ampex 3 track in 1958 with Neumann mics.

I also make recordings on a machine that records in 44.1/24 or 16. I hear a difference and 24 is better, no question. Much easier to mix, too. When I had a studio in NYC and recorded a barbershop quartet in 44.1/16 there were some chords that would produce some horrible digital artifacts, so much so that I actually had to mix them in the analogue domain.

Every opinion voiced here is shaped by the equipment the writers use. Some is more transparent than others. Some more forgiving than others. And some ears, better than others.

Which brings me to: EVERYTHING IS A FILTER. Cables, power source, amps, preamps, signal sources, cds, ADCs, DACs, records, streaming, speakers (huge filters), switches, tubes, transistors, op amps, tape machines, mixing boards, virtual mixing boards, rooms, the air in your room, florescent lights, led lighting, ear wax, aging, fatigue . . . Everything affects or alters perception.

Here’s another thing to consider. Upsampling is guesswork. Upsampling generates data that can only be a guess as to what happened between samples. Filters are, too. You pick the nicest sounding guesswork if granted that choice.

For easy math consider this: 44.1khz gives 2 samples of a 22khz event, 4 samples of a 11khz event, 8 samples of a 5.5khz event. There’s a lot of guess work needed to approximate the truth. That said, the brain does its best to fill in the missing pieces. That topic requires a treatise to explore.

My theory of listening and driving fatigue is that the mind is hungry for information. Like driving at night in fog, it's stressful because knowing where the road is is critical to survival. When listening, if you are used to hearing live un-amplified sound or great sound (hi fi) rich with detail and placement cues, the mind notices and strains to hear what is missing in lesser quality recordings or strains to filter out that which shouldn't be there, like harsh sibilants.

So a true 24 bit/ 44.1K recording, not from previously upsampled 16bit, reduces guess work and contains more truth. Double the sample rate and I would concur it becomes harder to discern differences with recordings with sample rates & bit depth above that. Harder but possible.

That said, I can hear file compression artifacts and I don’t use mp-anything for critical listening, AAC is less annoying but noticeable. Youtube is a crapshoot.

So answering the question that this thread is about, I’ll take 96/24 as a minimum for low anxiety critical listening, all remaining things being maximized to get out of the way.

That’s my $.02. Whatever happened to the cent sign that was on my Smith-Corona?

@aberyclark,

"If one were to make one final version of a master tape and store away that Master for many years. What method would capture everything the tape had to offer so future engineers could use that new source as the master?"


Perhaps you would use metal (or gold plated) LPs like L Ron Hubbard was supposed to have done with his collected works.

Apparently he stored them away inside some mountain for some future civilisation to find in case our current one ends up destroying itself.

He might have used M Disc had it been available in his lifetime, given that it has a purported lifetime of 1000 years. However it is unlikely to be as easy to play back as metal LP might be.

Neither digital or tape would have much chance of surviving a holocaust.

Digital on tape is particularly vulnerable. Apparently thousands of digital recordings became useless very quickly after becoming prone to dropouts.

-------

Data storage lifespans: How long will media really last?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.storagecraft.com/data-storage-lifespan/amp/

16/44.1 can sound very good. In my car at least it sounds symphonic with TIDAL, although it helps to have a great system with active crossover speakers etc....But at home it can sound great as well.

A 24/96 DAD can sound incredible. But even with the most trained ears, I've been told it is very hard indeed to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192. So at least for me, 24/96 seems more than adequate.

@antigrunge2 - thanks.  I read most of the link which discusses Delta Sigma versus R2R DACs.  Can't say I understand it all, but I think I get the point.  That may be why the SQ from good LPs has a certain life and richness that is lacking in digital. 

I do not know how Delta Sigma or R2R relates to streaming music. Maybe the music feed is just binary data that the the DAC (be it Delta SIgma or R2R) translates into an analogue signal. 

So, ... if one is looking to stream, is it possible to look for a DAC of a particular architecture?        

@bifwynne 
I am surprised that you have no benefit from upsampling. Have you tried inserting an Insulator into your USB connection? Does your DAC have a BNC input for a master clock? Both of these might help in making it more audible.

@bifwynne 

http://sw1xad.co.uk/delta-sigma-vs-nos-r2r-dac-designs/

Here's a question.....If one were to make one final version of a master tape and store away that Master for many years. What method would capture everything the tape had to offer so future engineers could use that new source as the master?

1. Digital? 24/96/24/192?

2. Analog tape copy?

@antigrunge2 - my ARC Ref 9SE can upsample redbook playback to 176.4kHz.  I tried it several times and cannot say it really sounds better overall than native sampling of 16Bit/44.1kHz.

You did mentioned that upsampling works best with delta sigma DACs.  Sorry for not being digitally technical, but is a delta sigma DAC refer to a type electronic architecture used in PCM DACs like Burr BrownDACs?   

Whereas hi-res recordings bring little advantage over well recorded and mastered redbook, upsampling redbook to higher sampling rates has real advantages in digital to analogue conversion. This applies obviously only to delta sigma dacs. R2R dacs conversely have to contend with euphonic distortion which is often referred to as analogue sounding.

My note on shm was on the physical medium being superior vs regular cd (better material).   As to the Steely Dan Aja sacd-here is an interesting read on the different versions-https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/the-best-version-of/the-best-version-of…-steely-dan’s-aja-r772/

FWIW, just picked this up from a Google search:

Lindell B. Jones Jr., Long-time music lover. Met a handful of rock/pop stars.Answered 1 year ago · Author has 156 answers and 144.5K answer views

Not that can actually be heard under ordinary circumstances.

Using 16 bit samples gives you 65,536 (2^16) possible values to which any given sample in an audio signal can be rounded. Using 24 bit samples gives you 16,777,216 (2^24) possible values, or 256 possibilities for each possibility with 16 bit. That is a huge difference on paper, but not to your ears.

The rounding of samples to the nearest possibility creates what’s called quantization noise. With 16 bit, the dynamic range for the quantization noise is 96 dB. That’s the difference between the loudest sound that can be recorded and the threshold at which you can just barely hear any quantization noise. With 24 bit, the dynamic range is 144 dB.

Now, consider that a very quiet room in a typical home has about 30 dB of background noise. That means that to hear any quantization noise on your 16 bit recording (e.g. a normal CD), you’d have to turn the volume up so that the loudest sounds are at 126 dB. That’s about the threshold of pain for most people. So unless you plan on playing your music so loudly that it makes your ears hurt (and you have equipment that can produce that volume), 16 bits is plenty.

By the way, the 174 dB you’d need to hear quantization noise with 24 bit is loud enough to literally KILL you!

If there’s an audible difference between a 16 bit and 24 bit recording, it is most likely because the 24 bit one was mastered better, as is often the case. But 16 bits is generally more than sufficient within the limits of human hearing.

See  www DOT quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-in-audio-accessories  

No comment from me other than it is just one gent's opinion.  And for the sale of full disclosure, I have never critically compared redbook CD (16 bit/44.1kHZ) to other hi-rez formats.  Not sure this is relevant, but my ARC CD-9SE can oversample my redbook CD playback to 176.4kHZ.  Not sure the output sounds all that much better that just playing the CD at the native 44.1kHZ sampling rate.

That said, I have critically compared my CD-9SE playing back redbook CDs source to vinyl played off my turntable.  IMO, vinyl "usually" sounds better, but not always.  I surmise that the SQ of the recording stamped onto the media (i.e., a CD versus an LP) can make a big difference in what comes out of the speakers.

For example, I recall A/B'ing a track on a CD of John Mellencamp's greatest hits to the same song on a Mellencamp record.  Interestingly, IMO, it was a photo finish of which format sounded better.  Maybe in the end, it may come down to garbage-in/garbage-out.  

What I am interested in exploring is the DAC side of my Ref CD-9SE for streaming.  Just have to get the courage and time to dip my toes into the streaming waters. 

Interesting thread.  I'll stay tuned.  

I have the SHM SACD version of Aja. Can  barely stand to listen it, actually I can’t stand to listen to it. Atrocious sound putting it mildly. My CD version or vinyl versions sound demonstrably better. Based on this one experience I would never purchase another product from SHM. 

What about the newer advances in physical media-shm discs from japan as well as the gold disc.  These should reduce the read error rate-no?

Just want to chime in here and (again) point out... that the best “audio reproduction” will always be beholden it’s source!!!  The original audio capture (and all the attention to details) in that initial “record”, is the essence we all try to preserve through our audio playback chain. As mentioned earlier... Tony Manasian’s exquisite and pure music recordings are special “reference audio” to be (enjoyed!) but also give you one of the MOST accurate windows, into the nuances of your (individual) playback-reproduction chain!

 If you are an audiophile, you will want to experience these sonic gems, on your own system!

Optimize,
You are technically correct and I misspoke, so let me clarify. Yes the red book format has remained the same as the parameters which define it are static. What I really was trying to explain are the two things that have changed over the course of the consumer digital lifespan namely;
1) recording and mastering engineers (the good ones anyway)have at their disposal better front end A/D equipment and have developed processes and systems which allow for better sounding music to get into the digital medium to start with and,
2) the consumer equipment performing the D/A conversion has gotten MILES better particularly in the past 5-7 years or so.
None of this should be surprising as the format matures and I’m certain digital has only begun its long and exciting optimization process. Looking to analogue which has been around probably 3 times as long as digital yet continues to get better as technology progresses.

I heard a big system recently for which the error correction function on the CD player was turned OFF. WOW. If only you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears. The trick is the CD surfaces have to be laboratory grade clean, otherwise the player shuts down.

I think bit rate and sample rate are increasing because the chip manufactures like Ti and Sabre are progressing, it cant be stopped. Chips will increase in bits and frequency and oems will source newer chips as time marches on. I read somwehere that the higher bit/sample rates make it easier on the designers simply due to mathematical capabilities more room for algorithms to run.

optimize
I don’t think that the medium CD has done ANY development since it it were defined by Sony and Philips. A fun fact is that they defined the CD and its specifications. Then the CD manufacturer needed to manufacture a CD that meet the specifications. But the same went for the CD drive manufacturers they need to be able to read a CD that meet the specifications.

>>>>Uh, optimize, it’s not the CD that’s the problem, it’s the CD player that’s the problem. Hel-loo! There is an extraordinary amount of information on the CD. You just can’t hear it properly or completely because the CD players are all pieces of junk. Yes, I know what some of you are thinking, but my system sounds fabulous! I’ll spare DACs my wrath since by the time the audio signal gets to the DAC it’s too late! Hel-loo!

Wow! Did I just read that? Someone is suggesting that audiophiles start copying what teenagers listen to? OMG! Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! 😱

poorly mastered or recorded CDs still sound like dog poo but that is not the fault of the medium which has gotten much better over the past 35 years of its development.

I don't think that the medium CD has done ANY development since it it were defined by Sony and Philips.
A fun fact is that they defined the CD and its specifications. Then the CD manufacturer needed to manufacture a CD that meet the specifications. 
But the same went for the CD drive manufacturers they need to be able to read a CD that meet the specifications..

And someone needs to measure the CD that it meets the requirements/specifications. Otherwise the media and drive manufacturers would be in the dark..

But in the end a CD from early 80-ties will play fine in all CD readers if it meets the specifications. Same same no development but today we have better clocks and electronics. So that CD will sound better today than it did then..

For the OP’s original question about 24/96. The answer I think is an emphatic no. Hell 16/44 keeps getting better as the DACs improve over time to the point that it sounds damn good. Mind you old, poorly mastered or recorded CDs still sound like dog poo but that is not the fault of the medium which has gotten much better over the past 35 years of its development. 

@atdavid, "Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?"

This made me think of how little impact we audiophiles have on the actual delivery of music. Almost zero.

It's always been a business always driven by the chase for profits - and very little little else.

My dad listened to music via radio, valve amp driven vinyl and home recordings he made on his portable reel to reel deck.

I listened to music via transistors powering vinyl, cassette, minidisc, CD, radio, MP3 and streaming.

My children have only known music delivered in a digital format, usually via CD, MP3, YouTube and streaming.

The industry is only ever interested in delivering formats to the large consumer dog, and not its tiny audiophile tail. 

So it's understandable that each generation may have little experience of the way the previous one listened to music.

The general consumer driven assumption that products keep getting better is, as many audiophiles know, not always true.
There are even some who believe that for the pure reproduction of the spoken voice, things have hardly progressed since the days of the wax cylinder!

Let's also remember that the anachronistic current vinyl resurgence was primarily influenced by club culture experience, not by any wish for better sound quality. The record industry was not slow in cashing in. 

So far it remains the only format that came back to any significant extent. 

Redbook CD is more or less dead, so naturally enough the industry looks for other means to generate income. If 24/96 is deemed profitable then that's where it will go. 

Whether audiophiles actually need it is more or less irrelevant.

They are listening to vinyl on cheap systems. It is purely a nostalgia thing. They actually do care about sound, but they are driven by convenience. They are every bit as interested in music as older people are, they just have different tastes than the generation before them .... just like almost every other generation.  My kids listen to digital music for hours on end. They never complain about listening fatigue. That would never occur to them, no more than someone driving for hours complains about listening fatigue from their car stereo.


They not only don't "dislike" dynamically compressed music, they seem to prefer it. Look at what sells. Look at the music that is played in clubs which seems to lack any variance in volume.

Live concert would not inherently be dynamically compressed. That would all depend on the artist. It will be loud though. I must say as I get older, less and less of my age-peers are interested in going to concerts.

atdavid, it would appear, has bottomed out. 

... and if listening to a CD could induce "information overload," just imagine what might happen at a live concert!

atdavid

Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it.

I've never noticed that and can only wonder what led you to that conclusion. Most people don't care much about sound quality and younger people - based on attendance at audio shows and presence in dealer showrooms - seem as a group to be especially disinterested. But those young people who do care about sound quality seem to be the ones driving the vinyl resurgence, further casting doubt on your claim.

Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?

Information overload? From listening to a CD? Not likely.

It’s actually that young people have been used to the distortion and noise their entire lives. They don’t know the difference. 

Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?

Roger and out.

I had A/B'd the Chord 2 Qute in my systems against my (now ancient) Threshold DAC 2 and Threshold DAC 1/E. It was equal to the former and very, very slightly bested the latter. I also have listened to store systems with the Chord D.A.V.E. and thought them no better than mine.
So, the answer to your question is : No, you don't need anything better than 24/44. 

I used to be on the NASA (Voice) network back in the 70s at Goddard Space Flight Center for launches at Kennedy. Trust me, the sound of voice was clear as a bell and clean as a whistle. Voice quality was required to be 5x5. Besides nobody with any sense listens to diyaudio. 10-4. 🧑🏻‍🚀

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4206458/Why-is-NASA-audio-so-bad-

Of course there are. They read diyaudio an audiogon  and pressed the agency for changes since that article above. 

Well, shut ,my mouth and call me cornpone! I has no idea that there were audiophiles at NASA.

I think wire directionality is key. It influences the entropy of the data and can easily corrupt it. That's why NASA orders expensive directional cables for their infrastructure. Also power cords are important. Get the best possible, cannot be too thin: 
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/super-cable-2.jpg
The fuses- books can be written about them. Gold reference fuses are the minimum. The least important is the room acoustics, this can be easily improved with the carpet in front of the speakers.

The reason why The Industry kept increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is largely due to the simple fact that stock off-the-shelf untreated Redbook CDs 💿 played on stock untreated CD players sounded thin, harsh, two dimensional, bland, irritating, flat, unemotional, unnatural, boomy, screechy, and like papier-mâché. These severe issues with sound quality were not (rpt not) helped much by increasing bit rate and sampling rate, unfortunately, for the reasons I list below, I.e., the SYSTEM wasn’t good enough.  For obvious reasons, the incessant releases of remastered CDs didn’t help much with sound quality either, I.e., Dynamic Range over-compression.

Let’s review the most prominent things that affect CD system sound quality, shall we? Room acoustics, power cords, vibration isolation, resonance control of the player, resonance control of the CD, aftermarket fuses, wire directionality 🔛 and reduction of scattered laser light interference. You could say it was the Tweakers vs The Industry.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. 🥚

Joke or no joke, Messieurs Nyquist, Shannon and Monty comment like this:

The most common misconception is that sampling is fundamentally rough and lossy. A sampled signal is often depicted as a jagged, hard-cornered stair-step facsimile of the original perfectly smooth waveform. If this is how you envision sampling working, you may believe that the faster the sampling rate (and more bits per sample), the finer the stair-step and the closer the approximation will be. The digital signal would sound closer and closer to the original analog signal as sampling rate approaches infinity.

However, the truth is:

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn’t affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.

I will just assume you were making a joke wolfie62 ....

All I have to say is, I’ll get rid of my vinyl LPs when digital media gets to 128 bit, 4.4 MHz. That’s when the resolution/sampling approaches the infinite resolution of analog, with its zero samples/second music information.

The defense is being argumentative and badgering the witness. The prosecution rests. 

No, VI, it actually does not. It tracks with a group of people, particularly with audiophiles, but anyone who has rented a car, invariably to find the bass cranked, knows that all musical tastes are not the same, nor are all listening environments the same.  All the database reveals, for the 4th time is decisions made at recording, NOT the format, not even what the preference of the majority of the populace likes.


Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough?  Do you even understand that that is what this thread is about?

I think we can all assume that since one of the great "proponents" of subjective evaluation can't offer anything in this area that refutes 24/96 being enough, then we can assume it is.  Thanks for clarifying that VI.

geoffkait18,612 posts11-29-2019 5:27pmThe funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

Gosh, atdavid just found that out AND is trying to make us believe he’s the only one who knows. To think, people accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel. The funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

To someone who actually understands this data, and understands how it is calculated, then no, it is not an assertion, no more than my claim that 1+1 = 2.  You probably don't even know that while dynamic range is in the title, it is not even really a measure of dynamic range, but crest factor, from the average sound level, to the peak sound level over an arbitrary 3 second interval. The average, peak, min, are for the songs themselves, so that lists the average of all songs on the album, the minimum for the album, and the maximum for the album on a song by song basis.

The peak is more representative of the format, as it shows what is possible. Digital has no issues with playing loud all the time. Vinyl doesn't as there is not enough track space.

But that all said, this databases is not and was never intended to be an indication of what is possible in any format, but to push the industry to stop compressing CDs (and vinyl) so much, something that has been happening since the 70's, before CD existed.

That VI (or you) brings this up at all, really distracts from and adds nothing to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough.

cleeds2,593 posts11-29-2019 4:05pmI’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.

... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

You totally don’t get it. There are relatively few instances in over 100,000 entries where the dynamic range of the same issue of CD is higher than the vinyl issue. That’s just the way things are. You lose again. Einstein has the same affliction, arguing wrongly until he was blue in the face. 🥶 So you’re in good company. 😬

I never said vinyl was immune from over-compression. That’s putting words in my mouth I did not say. However, vinyl over the years has fared much better than digital. Just look at the data. Hel-loo!

Whack a mole! The sport of kings. I’m thankful for this opportunity to play Whack-a-mole, in the future there are no more audio forums.

geoffkait

The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format

Yes, of course. That should be obvious to anyone, unless perhaps they are seeking an argument.
atdavid

If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format ...

I’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.

... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

So what?

VI,

The whole point of the database is to keep track of how recording engineers and the industry are compressing music (unnecessarily). It is not relegated just to CD, but has been happening to Vinyl as well since the early 70's. It is a choice. The Average shows the decisions of the recording engineer. The peak is most reflective of the format potential. A CD or digital download can use it's peak DR throughout the whole CD if it so chooses. With vinyl, you will literally jump the track with too much DR, and you are limited in track space. The time is 4:04pm VI, not blue.

Your analysis in incorrect. You cannot go by max dynamic range only because the max can occur very infrequently on a given album or even only once or one one track. That is precisely why the database provides minimum and average and maximum dynamic range. You would be much better off choosing average and/or minimum dynamic range if you wish to see how *overly compressed* a given album is. Thanks for playing along, anyway. Better luck next time.

Folks, this is not faulty logic. It is no logic at all.

From: https://www.maat.digital/dro2/ . This has absolutely nothing to do with whether 16//44.1 is enough or 24/96 is enough. It is like saying "blue" when I ask you what time it is.

However, since you want to selectively use this database to move forward an irrelevant argument, I can play along too. If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format, as opposed to the average dynamic range, which is more indicative of mastering choices, then virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max/desc

What is DR?

The DR algorithm, related to PLR (Peak–to–Loudness Ratio) or “crest factor,” specifically measures the dynamic density or lack of dynamics caused by overly aggressive dynamic compression and limiting. Although the companion DRMeter MkII provides a manual measurement of the "official" integrated DR or DRi, only DROffline and DROffline MkII can generate official values automatically and in the background.

geoffkait18,604 posts11-29-2019 3:27pm

>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. 🧑🏻‍🚀