• Please note that there are a few updates and clarifications made in the Audiokarma Rules, mostly relating to advertising and the addition of the new "Paying it Forward" & "Giving back" forums in the AudioKarma Audio Marketplace section.

Is there really a point in going higher than 16/44.1?

audiodon said:
While that xiph article has its merits, I think it extrapolates on the facts or sees facts in ways to further an argument to prove a point.
Whether I prefer high rez because it's not brickwall filtered, is less compressed, or simply because I want to believe they're better doesn't matter.
When rendered correctly, I find high rez digital files unfatiguing.

I'd read something years ago saying that it was too bad that CD settled on 16bit/44k and didn't have elastic standards built in because it misses a bit that 18bit/56k would get.
I'm still having trouble with why more bits are worse. We live in a world where digital storage continues to increase dramatically in size.
Click to expand...

They *had* been looking at 12-bit audio for a while, some of the first players has 12bit DACs. But 44/16 was chosen because one of the executives at Sony loved classical, and wanted Beethoven's 9th on a single disc.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk 2
 
dewdude said:
``````````````. But 44/16 was chosen because one of the executives at Sony loved classical, and wanted Beethoven's 9th on a single disc.
Click to expand...

That's what the Soundstream people mentioned last year (?) when they did a presentation for our Audio Club. Dr Stockham passed away at a fairly early age and wasn't there.
 
dewdude said:
The DVD-Audio of Hotel California has a lovely 192khz track on it. But, I don't know if they remixed the stereo version since they made a 5.1 mix.
Click to expand...

Have you heard the Japanese SACD version? I don't have the DVD-A version, but from all accounts, the SACD is a winner in both 2 channel stereo and in multi-channel.

6143062976_9d09d1f703_n.jpg
 
I believe they used the same digital masters. I say that because the majority of SACDs were PCM at one point. The DVD-Video portion talked about the difficulty they had in creating the 5.1 mix due to the condition of the sessions. They baked them once; I don't believe they'd risk damaging them. 384khz format was around at that time; so its possible they did all the production in XRD. It wouldn't be too difficult to half the sampling rate for DVD-Audio then convert it to DSD for SACD later.

I haven't bought it because I've paid entirely too many times for that album; plus I think that thing is about $80.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk 2
 
The difference between 16bit and 24bit is night and day. 24 bit has more "headroom". Which is extremely important in the recording world. Not going to go into details, google it. Most recording studio's stick with the 24bit 44.1 settings in their DAW rigs. There are some who use 24bit/48 because the math is simpler during conversions and processing. I personally and other engineers dont see a difference in cpu load or sound quality between 44.1 and 48. Some say 24bit/96 sounds better, but I dont hear it and many others dont, hence the 90% of music is recorded in studios at 24bit/44.1 or 48. Now some big time studio's with millions are starting to use 32bit float/192 which is a resource hog to work with and requires tons of external gear. I have not heard how this gear sounds, and I doubt it sounds better than 24bit/44.1. But 24bit is what you need to record at !!!! Its all about "Headroom" !!!
Now lets talk "dithering" . When you record your music, be it vinyl, tape or actual musicians. Once recorded at 24bit, if you convert it to 16bit you must use a converter that uses "dithering" in the process. If not some weird **** can happen. Not sure if iTunes and other consumer software impliments dithering is its conversion. I use a DAW for my conversions and recording.
 
Last edited:
I can't get into the deep aspects of all the digital mumbo-jumbo.....At the core of it all to me its what sounds best.
I have dabbled in hi-rez files, I own a few and would not mind more but what I do want is not available in hi-rez, nor do I think any of it will be. And what is I don't care to spend $20-$25 on as either I have the vinyl or the CD already.

My system is not SOTA (lol)....but it does play CDs very nicely as I have compared it to other systems at some local audio stores. And the few hi-rez files I do have, one being Yes-Fragile 24/96, it sounds a tad better in some areas than my CD remaster copy...Although I prefer my vinyl version, hands down.

I also have no desire to spend the money to replace the CDs I have with a hi-rez copy.....I honestly do not hear enough of the WOW factor to pay dbl the price for hi-rez.
I was in a store on Roosevelt UW District and listened to a Mc system playing hi-rez....it really did not impress me. Could have been cables, system match, store acoustics, which are never good...Who knows.

But I really thought my system sounded better with redbook CDs. I do think some artists are starting to pay attention more to the sound of their CDs...Its getting better, with more room to improve......When that really gets better I would be more than happy staying with 16/44.1 redbook CDs.
 
Thanks for all the input, folks. This thread has certainly been educational!

No, I don't have a DAC that will do anything more than redbook, which is why I am curious about all of this. If I had one on hand, i would do exactly what is suggested and trust my own ears. But, until then....
 
I bought a DAC that can do 24/192. I didn't buy it for that reason, but figured it would be nice to have.

Personally, I hear a difference. Not huge by any means but it's enough to make it worthwhile.

I'll have to do some more testing in this regard. I'll have to try a 44/16 vs. 192/24 and see if there's a definite difference. I haven't listened to a lot of 24bit stuff.
 
canuckaudiog said:
I bought a DAC that can do 24/192. I didn't buy it for that reason, but figured it would be nice to have.

Personally, I hear a difference. Not huge by any means but it's enough to make it worthwhile.

I'll have to do some more testing in this regard. I'll have to try a 44/16 vs. 192/24 and see if there's a definite difference. I haven't listened to a lot of 24bit stuff.
Click to expand...

How you enjoying your Musical Paradise Dac? Looks like a great deal. Nice to see someone designing quality audio in Alberta!
 
Last edited:
I would never record anything at 16bit. Why would you ? The greater signal to noise ratio that 24 bit brings to the table is a no brainer. Sure 16 bit is what cd's are at, but thats because thats what the format was limited too when developed. Record 24bit or higher and dither down when burning to cd. Hear is a great article on the debate. Hell anyone interested in studio recording or gear this is a great site to learn from.
http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm
 
The only person talking about recording audio in this thread is you, Bushmaster, and you already said that you should record higher, and so did all the articles posted before you.
 
Recording is actually what got me into thinking of high-res in playback in my hi fi. I record in higher than 16/44 and prefer it that way, having made the comparison, and it made me want to try it in playback, in my hi fi hobby.

The idea that you should record in it but that it would be pointless in playback just makes no sense to me. And yes, I have read the arguments as to why. They all make assumptions on what is audible and what affects the listening experience.
 
JohnVF said:
The idea that you should record in it but that it would be pointless in playback just makes no sense to me. And yes, I have read the arguments as to why. They all make assumptions on what is audible and what affects the listening experience.
Click to expand...

Actually, the idea makes perfect sense to me. Recording is kinda like moving a piece of furniture through a doorway - if it just barely fits, you're likely to ding it up. Higher resolution makes it easier to get the music through the doorway of the recording process. But if you've done that successfully, playing it back through the smaller (e.g., 16/44.1) may be just fine.
 
JohnVF said:
The idea that you should record in it but that it would be pointless in playback just makes no sense to me. And yes, I have read the arguments as to why. They all make assumptions on what is audible and what affects the listening experience.
Click to expand...
The main points for it refer to the need for manipulations that effectively lower the bitrate and/or depth by nature. That's a pretty straightforward reason to need more data for recording than for playback, requiring no assumptions.

There IS going to be an exact amount of information needed for playback where you can only do harm or nothing by using more. The "assumptions" you speak of (more like well-supported hypothosis, I'd say) come into play when you're pinning down that number, I guess. It's still a separate thing from using more for recording, though.
 
JohnVF said:
Recording is actually what got me into thinking of high-res in playback in my hi fi. I record in higher than 16/44 and prefer it that way, having made the comparison, and it made me want to try it in playback, in my hi fi hobby.

The idea that you should record in it but that it would be pointless in playback just makes no sense to me. And yes, I have read the arguments as to why. They all make assumptions on what is audible and what affects the listening experience.
Click to expand...

If you're ripping LP's and doing any sort of digital click and pop removal, the higher rez, the better, both for accurate detection and minimal cut and fill. Downsample them to something reasonable after all of the fixing is done.
 
dumptruck said:
The only person talking about recording audio in this thread is you, Bushmaster, and you already said that you should record higher, and so did all the articles posted before you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didnt mean to step on your toes or piss you off. But the original post was "Whats the point of going higher than 16bit/44.1. And there is alot different points and reasons to go higher. Listening, recording, archiving... The list goes on. I convert vinyl at 24 bit and find that the wave file I record sounds light years above the store bought cd. Dont even get me started on the different da/ad chip manufacturers and those that "color" the sound during conversions. These debates can go anywhere :) But hey, sorry I strayed from what you deemed as appropriate. :thmbsp:
 
My experience has been with ripping vinyl at 192/24 bit, and then making a copy at 44/16.

To be honest, I couldn't tell any difference between the 2 files. The DAC was a EMU 404, and files were played through Sennheiser 480 headphones.

My hearing does roll off pretty fast above 12k, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom