Red Book vs Hi Res

It's not just that, we've done both 16 bit and 24 bit direct analog to dig transfers to make sure that up or down sampling wasn't the issue. We've also found that a good downsampling can be even better than a direct lower bit rate transfer. It's not the downsampling that will cause the difference if done properly. I suspect that Ferenc has done the same at some earlier point in time to make sure things can be at their best.

AMA,

Resist all you want.

Sorry you are getting an answer you dont want to hear.

Why dont you just listen for yourself and make your own decisions.

Why do you have such a hard time believing hires files, all else being as equal as possible, sound better.

Until you demo it yourself i dont want to hear anything more about it out of you.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
It's not just that, we've done both 16 bit and 24 bit direct analog to dig transfers to make sure that up or down sampling wasn't the issue. We've also found that a good downsampling can be even better than a direct lower bit rate transfer. It's not the downsampling that will cause the difference if done properly. I suspect that Ferenc has done the same at some earlier point in time to make sure things can be at their best.

Yes, sure, if you search the archive you probably can find the links here. We even had an experiment to find out which is better: to downsample and dither to 44k/16b from 96k/24b with different software algorithms or to rerecord the output of the DAC's 96k/24b I have short 3 minutes samples of a contemporary jazz music what we were using for the experiment if anybody is interested. Very educational.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
I think I linked these samples sometime a year ago here, but here they are again.

Live guitar recording by an internationally acclaimed guitarist. The original was recorded in 128 x DSD (5.6 MHz 1 bit sampling) with a Korg MR-1000 portable pro hard disk recorder. Mic was a DPA pair, with some tube Ear - Yoshino mic preamp, cables are XLR balanced Nirvana SL, including the mic cables. The samples are converted from the same 5.6 MHz 1 bit original DSD recording, using Korg Audiogate software and its conversion.

Live Guitar Conversion Samples

The microphone position was a kind of spontaneous as the artist moved it from the well balanced position, when started to play

I have just done a short A-B on the 16/44.1 and 24/96 (my DAC doesn't do 24/192) and it is a clear winner.
The 24/96 has much more detail and clarity (I believe the word is better microdynamics ). The 16/44.1 seems a bit more locked up, not completely free.

I started with the 16/44.1 and thought: "wow that's a great sound, I love it, 16/44.1 can really sound great."
Then I put on the 24/96 and it was noticable in a few seconds, this was a much more free sound, with better reproduction of all those little sounds in striking the strings, etc.
Then I went back and forth a few times to see if I was kidding myself (not very blind I know, but I can hear what I like best), but no, I definitely preferred the 24/96.

If it is due to the 24-bits instead of the 16-bits or due to the 96kHz instead of 44.1kHz, I don't know, but I do prefer the Hi-Res.

-
aleg

quote:

AMA,

Resist all you want.

Sorry you are getting an answer you dont want to hear.

pcstockton, I don't resist anything. I'm not against hi-res.
I only published my concerns on the value of high sample rates.

quote:

Why dont you just listen for yourself and make your own decisions.

Why do you have such a hard time believing hires files, all else being as equal as possible, sound better.

Until you demo it yourself i dont want to hear anything more about it out of you.

Pls, read my posts above -- I did a careful audition and published the findings.
So, pls, hear something from out of me

I agree that 24/96 files sound better than 16/44 -- and it was not a challenge for me to hear this.
But I failed to pick up the difference between various sample rates.
There could have been many variables in this test -- particularly I'm not sure about the origin of the hi-res files I tested for sample rate (from Nordic Sound). Another option is that my DAC not resolving the difference.

quote:

If it is due to the 24-bits instead of the 16-bits or due to the 96kHz instead of 44.1kHz, I don't know, but I do prefer the Hi-Res.

Aleg, it's one of the major point of this discussion

js, ferenc,

Can you share a pair of files 16/44 and 16/96 (or 24/44 and 24/96) where you definitely hear the higher sample rate superiority?

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:

quote:

If it is due to the 24-bits instead of the 16-bits or due to the 96kHz instead of 44.1kHz, I don't know, but I do prefer the Hi-Res.

Aleg, it's one of the major point of this discussion

I know AMA, I know.

But I always like to think of myself as a practicle guy.

So looking at it from a practicle point of view, what's the purpose??

Either I buy CD's which are 16/44.1 or I buy HiRes download which are usually either 24/88.2 or 24/96.

For a given album I don't have the choice of 16/44.1, 20/44.1, 24/44.1 etc and also for 48kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96kHz, 176.4kHz and 192kHz.

I'm already glad if I can buy a HiRes download for an album I want.

So what is the point of knowing if the improvement comes from bit-depth or sample-rate, except for the knowing of it?

Strictly speaking it would seem logical that if you have more samples of the sound and per sample have more information about the sound, you would be able to create the best reproduction. Which element gives the best audible improvement? "Who cares"

If they make the Mastered registration available, whatever sample-rate/bit depth it has, that's the best you will get. And I would probably buy it if they keep it affordable.

So you can imagine I start wondering where this is going to

-
aleg

quote:

So what is the point of knowing if the improvement comes from bit-depth or sample-rate, except for the knowing of it?

Aleg, it's all about curiosity

99% of audiophiles upgrade their systems which were sounding great to them until they auditioned the new one in the showroom.

Guess what exactly moved these people to visit a showroom?

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:
js, ferenc,

Can you share a pair of files 16/44 and 16/96 (or 24/44 and 24/96) where you definitely hear the higher sample rate superiority?

Naim label for us and Ferenc supplied a link. I also wanted to point out that you have chosen your DAC based on it's performance on 44k material. If 96 sounds better on it, we can't really fault the DAC's upsampling, can we? If that were the case, you would have selected a non upsampling DAC(as I often do) in the first place. Of course the filters used may still favor one over the other. Our experience if that the improvement comes from both bit depth and sample rate. I find 24/96 is a threshold where things get really good. Things seems to change more than improve beyond but this can be equipment dependent and we'll need to try again with the Naim DAC which really shouldn't favor any format. The difference up from 16/44 is quite significant for me but the differences above 96 have not been very important so far. I understand that more isn't always better. Just more stressful if the res is beyond what's audible but that point is well above 16/44.

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:

I agree that 24/96 files sound better than 16/44 -- and it was not a challenge for me to hear this.
But I failed to pick up the difference between various sample rates.

There's your answer. In your very first post, as well as the title of the thread you created, you talk about hires v. redbook.

a few posts later you ask if anyone has compared the two? I responded to that and you promptly eschewed my experience. You chalked up my findings by disparaging my DAC.

Then you go on to compare a very expensive and legendary (in these parts) CDS3 to a SACD of unknown quality.

Then you start talking about how 18, or 20 bits is probably enough, insinuating that 24 is not necessary.

Thats when i posted my comment and stopped caring about this thread.

Since your question and line of thought in this has changed dramtically, I will comment on your new obsession. I could not hear a major difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on a Benchmark (i think) DAC I tried it on. 24/96 is good enough for me.

Although I am going to guess that 18/48 will be all you will require

-p

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:

Aleg, it's all about curiosity

99% of audiophiles upgrade their systems which were sounding great to them until they auditioned the new one in the showroom.

Guess what exactly moved these people to visit a showroom?

Guess what prompted you??? I guess the findings of people you dont know, as written on a online forum.

quote:

Originally posted by AMA:
js, ferenc,

Can you share a pair of files 16/44 and 16/96 (or 24/44 and 24/96) where you definitely hear the higher sample rate superiority?

I made this link available again, it was inserted here quite a while ago. It will be available only until end of this week. I hear quite reasonable difference between the different sample rates, playing themback on any of my DACs. Please check if your playback system is running at the proper sampling rate and there is no up or downsampling while you play it back. Then you easily can hear the difference. Download the tracks and play it locally back, not from the browser.

The original vinyl rip was made using Korg MR-1000 in 128x DSD. You can download the original DSD files from the link below, if you want to play with other resampler/converter than the Audiogate I used.

Jazz Sampler

Here is another comparison.

It is the original studio master wav file, in 96k/24 bit, with no overdubbing, and with minimal processing:

original 96k sample

These are the 44k (32 bit, non-dithered) software converted wav samples from the masters, with 3 different sample rate converter algorithm:

44k - software converted

The last version is 44k wav file again (32 bit too), but rerecorded from the analog output of the DAC. The DAC was a pro mastering Mytek 8x192ADDA, the ADC was a Lavry AD10. The cable between the two was Nirvana Audio SX balanced. The Mytek DAC was connected to the PC workstation with a Lynx AES Card, and the Lavry ADC was connected to the Lynx AES PCIe Card too, using custom made break out cable with the Lynx. All equipments were running from an Audience AdeptResponse Power Conditioner, including the PC, using Audience mains cables (we did not have Power-Line at this time ) and dedicated mains and grounding in the studio.

44k - analog rerecorded

Have fun

quote:

There's your answer. In your very first post, as well as the title of the thread you created, you talk about hires v. redbook.

No at all. Sometimes I hear 24/96 is better than 16/44 -- the other records show no audible difference. This says nothing about the limitations of 16/44. Especially a value of high sample rates remains unclear for me at the moment.

quote:

a few posts later you ask if anyone has compared the two? I responded to that and you promptly eschewed my experience. You chalked up my findings by disparaging my DAC.

I did not disparaging your DAC -- I have never listened for Beresford DAC -- I only mentioned that fair check for 16/44 abilities should involve the top 16/44 replay machine like CDS3.

quote:

Then you go on to compare a very expensive and legendary (in these parts) CDS3 to a SACD of unknown quality.

The SACD was McIntosh MCD301. I agree that possibly MCD301 is not good enough to rival CDS3 but it's definitely in the same league as CDX2. I thought possibly SACD clarity will shock me -- but it didn't happen.

quote:

Then you start talking about how 18, or 20 bits is probably enough, insinuating that 24 is not necessary.

Yes, nobody has commented on these thoughts. Possibly you can explain me how are you going to use your 96 dB noise floor amps to discern 24 bit music?

quote:

Thats when i posted my comment and stopped caring about this thread.

Pls, be patient.

quote:

Since your question and line of thought in this has changed dramtically,

pcstockton, my line of thoughts is pretty straightforward and it did not change since the very first post. Pls, read my posts carefully.

quote:

I will comment on your new obsession. I could not hear a major difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on a Benchmark (i think) DAC I tried it on.

OK -- this is a real practical observation. I failed to discern them as well.

quote:

24/96 is good enough for me.

Same for me. But I'm not sure 24/96 is not excessive and try to figure this out

quote:

Although I am going to guess that 18/48 will be all you will require Winker

In my tests I failed to hear 24 bit is improving over 20 bit.
In fact -- and I mentioned this before -- I failed to hear 96 kHz improving over 44 kHz.

pcstockton, I don't mean to upset people by disparaging their gears or the hi-res format -- this is a discussion thread which I liked very much for the fruitful responses and useful links.
I will continue experiments with the new links from ferenc and come back with findings.

ferenc, thanks for the links. I shall check them up and come back with test results.

Hi ferenc,

I downloaded your sample files. Though I feel the music doesn't really test your playback, I decided to copy to my iPhone for convenience. Ok, stick my head over the parapet.

1) 96/24 original.wav
2) izotop 4432
3) 4432 sample
4) 4432 r8b
5) 4432 analog

To me they just became less transparent and effortless the moment you move from 96/24.

Peter

quote:

Hi ferenc,

I downloaded your sample files. Though I feel the music doesn't really test your playback, I decided to copy to my iPhone for convenience. Ok, stick my head over the parapet.

1) 96/24 original.wav
2) izotop 4432
3) 4432 sample
4) 4432 r8b
5) 4432 analog

To me they just became less transparent and effortless the moment you move from 96/24.

Peter

Hi ferenc, Peter

I have finally lent my ears to test these tracks.

Guitar Samples. No surprise: 24/96 sounds better than 44/16.
24/96 is smoother, more refined details, less compressed especially at arpeggios.
Deck tapping is stiffer on 24/96.
It also provides deeper and more refined soundstage: back cough is blurred in space
and less refined in details.

Positive: Very good test track, especially for tube setups. Low noise, grand soundstage and pint-point imaging.

Negative: 1) no test on freq extension 2) no 24/44 or 16/96 downsamples to check is it 24 bit or 96 kHz which maked up the sound singing.

Jazz LP sampler. No surprise: 24/44 sounds better than both 16/44 and 16/88. I had the similar experience in the past.

Positive: nothing to say.

Negative: test record is very POOR in terms of soundstage (very flat presentation) which I like to use in bit/sample rate analysis. Soudn is not much refined. Strange choice for tests...

Kortars mast. Obviously 24/96 makes the best sound at a big margin.
All 32/44 look a bit compressed and multiple microdetails are better refined on 24/96.
Surprisingly 24/96 worked better even in bass section.
I didn't spend much time in auditioning the various software algorithms but 32/44 analog was slightly worst than the others 32/44.

If tested blind I would have said the best sound (which turned to be 24/96) was due to the bit rate rather than sample rate.
Possibly I did not train myself enough to attribute sonic features to bit-rate and sample-rate variations. But in the past tests I had a very consistent experience of how the higher bit rate sounds while I failed to pick up the higher sample rate. Kortars mast is the first case in my experience. I have to digest this. Possibly a strange choice of 32 bits coding contributed to the end result -- as my DACs do not support 32 bits and produce primitive downsampoling on the fly which possibly deteriorated the sound. ference, is it possible to downsample properly 24/96 to 24/44 and share this file?

Positive: track is very good for testing. A challenging combination of wind and string instruments along with synthetic sound of compressed guitar and acoustic drums (drums record is very clean and spacious). Very good freq extension and quite spacious soundstage (but not deep enough - possibly due to particular microphones setup).

Negative -- music is so booooring. I was so happy when test was over (sorry if disparaged someone taste) ....

Anyway -- if raise to the top of the thread all three experiments do not prove a lot except a well known fact that cheap hi-res player can sound better than more expensive 16/44 player.
These experiments only prove that both of my DACs reproduce hi-res better than 16/44 -- which is not surprising as both of them implement primitive upsampling while 24/96 is the native mode.
And my DACs don't use advanced methods of 16/44 replay designs like apodizing filters.
And both of them are entry level comparing to the top quality 16/44 replay (comparing to say CDS3).

At the same time my bitstream transport (Logitech Transporter) is very low jitter which makes it perfect for effortless hi-res reproduction without use of exotic digital and analogue filters.

Now I would like to listen for the same tracks on the TOP QUALITY 16/44 replay machine and then compare it to hi-res -- will I hear more difference? It's more common to claim that higher quality DACs make more difference between hi-res and Red Book -- but can we say Lavry DA10 will sound better on hi-res than CDS3 on Red Book?

Possibly Naim DAC will avail such a test at home ( I'm not sure it will gain acknowledgment from CDS3 owners).

ference, thanks again for the useful links. If you can share another set of bit/sampling tracks with more hmmm.. conventional ( ) music stuff -- I would be endlessly thankful.

AMA - have you tried gimell records - www.gimell.com - you can download MP3, 16/44.1, 24/48 and 24/96 versions of the same master.

quote:

AMA - have you tried gimell records - www.gimell.com - you can download MP3, 16/44.1, 24/48 and 24/96 versions of the same master.

Interesting link, thanks a lot.