+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Which Are The Best Sites For Downloading High-Resolution Audio?

  1. #31
    Join Date: Aug 2008

    Location: Tyldesley Manchester

    Posts: 294
    I'm David.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Recording is different but for playback there should be no audible difference.
    Well the difference is not vast but to me a final rendered track in 24/44.1 compared to 16/44.1 is hard to put in words. The bass on synth sounds is slightly fatter, warmer, has more decay. There seems to be more 'air' around all the sounds with a slightly more 'open' spacious sound. I hate using cliche's but I cannot think of any other words to describe it.

    Now going to 96Khz seems a complete waste of time as it makes no difference in my stuff. 44.1 to 48k is marginal also but the 16 to 24 bit seems worth it. I guess HDCD was 20 bit so 20 bit would be good enough also and a pitty 20 bit HDCD was not more adopted. Being in a position to render finished tracks in the DAW to 16 bit and 24 bit without any changes on the mix / master bus means I can do A-B tests with exactly the same material with no changes to the mastering.

    I use HD800 cans BTW. I would not pay 2x the price for a 24 bit version of an album, it really is not worth it but if the cost is the same for 24bit 44.1 vs 16bit 44.1 then you might as well. Syngate priced their first 24 bit digital download the same as previous 16 bit releases so no big deal.

    If you want to do your own test if you have some 24 bit tracks then grab the open source audacity, import a 24 bit wav and export as 16 bit. Check the prefs for setting the dithering quality. You can then A-B yourself with a favourite track.
    Last edited by swampy; 04-10-2017 at 16:50.
    David.

  2. #32
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,770
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Thing is the bit depth only determines the maximum dynamic range it has nothing to do with the frequency response.

    We can't rule out the electronics behaving differently with different dampling rates. Benign distortion is a possibility. Some products that clism to improve digital replay by reducing noise and distortion actually increase noise and distortion. But people buy them, use them and like what they do. In the subjective realm, as always, all bets are off. Some change might improve the subjective sound, but not for the reasons we think, or that the manufacturer's claim.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  3. #33
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,770
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Sorry about all the misspellings. On my phone and they are a bitch to correct.

    David I have done a comparison with a 24/192 recording downsampled to 16/44.1
    Neither I nor my friend who set it up could distinguish them.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  4. #34
    Join Date: Aug 2008

    Location: Tyldesley Manchester

    Posts: 294
    I'm David.

    Default

    Maybe the track renders slightly different from the synths in 24 bit. That could account for the sound difference. I doubt I could hear it on anything but higher end headphones tbh unless your speakers are something very special. I cannot tell a difference on budget ear phones or budget stand mounts I have between 16 bit and 24 bit. I only hear a slight improvement on the HD800 cans so I bet for 90+ % of users 24 bit is a little pointless. Like I said the change is not vast and you need to have trained ears tuned to your own equipment.
    David.

  5. #35
    Join Date: Feb 2011

    Location: England

    Posts: 290
    I'm James.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    ........One other thing worth looking out for is that some publishers will issue a high rez recording along with the same recording in 16/44.1 as a comparison. They will deliberately hobble the 16/44.1 in order to demonstrate that the high rez is worthwhile....
    I am not doubting you and I can't say I'm surprised but do you have any material corroborating this and if so, would it not be a good idea to try and publicise the fact more widely?
    I'm sure the wider 'Hi-Rez' buying public would be interested.

    Jim.

  6. #36
    Join Date: Aug 2008

    Location: Tyldesley Manchester

    Posts: 294
    I'm David.

    Default

    Another point I remember, it is not uncommon to use an EQ curve in the final mix be it hardware or software. These usually roll off the very low frequencies and also the high above 22K and have been around for a very long time even before the digital era. Does this make the higher sample rate 24 bit files pointless ? I think as already said these re-hashed older albums have just been re-mastered using better methods and tools.
    David.

  7. #37
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Brisbane

    Posts: 1,595
    I'm Bernie.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    It is possible to downsample with no effect on sound quality and indeed this has been done by the AES and others in order to test if there is any difference in the audibility of recordings made with extended bandwidth. Unsurprisingly no-one who took part in the tests was able to tell the difference. Had they been able to it would have been a very big deal as far as medical science is concerned.

    One other thing worth looking out for is that some publishers will issue a high rez recording along with the same recording in 16/44.1 as a comparison. They will deliberately hobble the 16/44.1 in order to demonstrate that the high rez is worthwhile. Shocking really, but the fact is there are no limits to what some people will do to put food on the table.
    In my experience it's more about putting a Mercedes in the garage than food on the table.
    Bernie.

  8. #38
    Join Date: Apr 2017

    Location: Cheshire UK

    Posts: 843
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    So we all need to sit in a room again with the experts and see if we can hear any difference. I think it probably is down to the re-mastering/mastering as there seem countless tweaks to be made on the desk if you have access to the original master.

    When was the last double blind test? Its time we had another one on the best equipment and put this to bed.

    Ive had some great sounds on cd this week but Ive still got some upgrading to hear cd reproduced at its best. I then get dissatisfied when I hear Fremer and co going on. Then the vinyl vs cd debate rears up again and then I think of all the threads on multiple forums with people loading Flac files etc and talking about high res.

    I use apple lossless just for ripping my cds. I rarely buy in i tunes 256k when I must have the track right away. So far I havent been interested in other file formats and high res downloads

    What Hi Fi ( I flick through it in Sainsburys ) are running another section on personal Hi Res players. I cant really afford many high res recordings and I reckon Macca Martin is right about this as there have been listening tests where nobody could hear any real difference. Is this really the Emperors new format?
    Last edited by Minstrel SE; 06-10-2017 at 20:59.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •