Have you ever gone to 24bit 96kHz but then went back to 44.1kHz 16 bit?

Posted by: Consciousmess on 25 May 2018

Got to ask as 24 bit blows 16 bit out the water!

Posted on: 25 May 2018 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Yes I have... 24 bit is certainly not always better once mastered using regular high quality replay equipment, however producing a quality 16 bit 44.1kHz DAC is a lot harder than producing a DAC that is reasonably good at 24bit 98kHz hence why hidef can so often sound better.

yes in the limit a good hidef master simply breathes and feels better, and some complex recordings, especially orchestras and the like appear to resolve more naturally but I wouldn’t say it blows a quality 44.1/16 replay out of the water... but on lesser equipment the differences are more pronounced I agree.

Posted on: 26 May 2018 by Bert Schurink

 No why would I do that. I never compare the two, as it means you would need to own the both. I tend to always buy the highest available and don’t look back. However I also can attest to what Simon is saying. I find one good example the Thriller high res from Michael Jackson. I have the feeling there the normal cd version better brings across the recording while missing some details...

Posted on: 26 May 2018 by EJS

Differences in equipment have a far greater impact than resolution, but I agree with simon-in-suffolk it’s easy to botch the downsampling from hires to CD. Among popular DIY solutions, dbpoweramp for instance I’ve found adds a touch (approx 3db) of loudness to a CD. XLD doesn’t dither and can sound compressed as a result. Vox is rather good, as is Myriad / Sample Manager. I regularly master my own CDs from hires downloads and spend quite a bit of time tailoring the files to taste. Playing back hires is easier, but less fun.

Posted on: 29 May 2018 by Bluebeard

There have been a number of elements with hi-res which are troubling for ensuring you are in fact getting a better sound.

In a discussion on Audiostream about Miles Davis In a Silent Way, Michael Lavorgna notes "the overall DR Value for the 24/176.4 release is DR11 which is not as high a number as the CD at DR13 or the LP at DR12 (according the Dynamic Range Database)" . Now while he doesn't regard this as significant, it does imply a conscious decision to engineer the hi-res recording differently from other formats. He also notes the difficulty in tracking down the provenance of the hi-res master tape. In a discussion on the computeraudiophile of the same album, comment is made that the 24/192 version is just the 24/96 upconverted. When I compare all versions I have (1980's vinyl (australian - so poor)1991 Columbia Cd, 2004 The Complete Sessions Cd, and the 24/96 hi res) I tend to play the Complete Sessions the most. To my ears - it sounds more dynamic than the other versions.

Keith Howard, John Darko, Alex Metal-Fi, Mark Waldrep and others have raised serious concerns about provenance. Keith Howard in particular convincingly demonstrated that a large number of hi-res files were just upsampled 16/44.1 files - that is though marketed as hi-res these files contained no content that was different from the cd version of the file. The worst thing? This was first reported in 2011 and still is not unusual...


As so many of our colleagues have said over the years, "it's not the format, it's the remastering that counts". While there are some good hi-res recordings out there - particularly in classical music, there are some pretty duff hi-res mixes out there (the Miles Warner remasters are spectacularly bad to my and other ears...). Buying just because it's hi-res, well I'm sure the record companies are happy...

All IMO of course,

regards,

Giles

 

 

 

Posted on: 29 May 2018 by Innocent Bystander

As noted by Bluebeard the mastering is not always the same, so differences heard are not necessarily to do with but depth or sample rate - but in fact more than just the mastering can vary, for example Roger Waters’ Amused to Death  changed some of the incidental linking sounds, the hi res version including the voice of Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I gather hadn't been included when the music was originally released because Stanley Kubrick wouldn’t give permission, but possible after his death when the hi res version was released (of course, it is also possible that subsequent 16/44 releases or even LP pressings may also have the same change, but I haven’t heard).