Article: "Why 24bit/192KHz Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed"

[Quicky82]

Couldn't see this mentioned anywhere else on the forum, apologies if it's old news!

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I read this article recently, and found it really useful in clearly and succinctly explaining some regularly-heard misconceptions about digital audio. It also argues that high-resolution audio formats are unnecessary..

Thought I would share this and see what people think. Do we really need any more resolution than the Redbook CD format provides? If we do, how do you refute the arguments in this article?

[Tim]

Have you heard 24/192 music played on a good system Adam?

[Quicky82]

I have, they were sample files and audio rather than music I was familiar with. I thought they sounded great, but I'm curious to know if that was the resolution of the files, or the way the audio had been mastered.

It's been a while since I did this, if anyone can recommend some good hi-res samples I'd be interested in trying this again.

[JimC]

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16720

[Quicky82]

Ah, hadn't seen that, sorry. :doh:

Great minds eh?

[Tim]

TBH Adam, that article probably won't get much response round here, just as it didn't the first time round. I glanced at it but when I saw graphs and long winded explanations I dismissed it as something I didn't want to read. The reason being is that I trust what I hear and what I want from my system, not a bunch of scientific jargon. I have heard plenty of 24/192 and there clearly is a difference and you have confirmed this yourself, so 'refuting arguments' from that article is frankly pointless and rather meaningless. If you can hear a difference and like how it sounds then that should be good enough, as I suspect it would be for most folk on AoS as we are in the main subjectivists.

From my point of view, I am more than happy with Red Book and as the majority of the population seem to be happy with mp3, I doubt it will ever be the 'next big thing' ;)

[John]

+1 with bells and whistles added

[Quicky82]

Thanks for the replies.

I would never aim to refute anyone's personal, subjective experience. The subjective enjoyment of listening to music is why we're all here, no matter what any articles say or what any double-blind study finds.

I'm just personally very interested in where the two sides meet in any aspect of life, especially in audio.

If no one ever studied anything related to audio 'objectively', then there would be no such thing as hifi equipment or audio formats for us to 'subjectively' enjoy our music on.

Articles such as the one I posted I personally find to be very thought-provoking and I'm interested in other people's interpretations.

Anyway, speaking totally practically, the whole thing is a bit of a moot point seeing as most music these days is mastered to fit into the last 5db of dynamic range! If something is mastered that badly, who cares what resolution the playback format is?!

[ZebuTheOxen]

The type of person to spend thousands on a good quality Stereo is also the sort of person who wants the highest quality source material.

The average MP3 player owner is more bothered by convenience.

That article draws incorrect conclusions from scientific data, there isn't much more to say.

[Macca]

If simply doing the maths really did demonstrate that higher bit rates and sampling did not at least potentialy give better resolution and therefore sound then the engineers who developed SACD and DVD-A would not have bothered. Subjectively, I also find that they 'sound better' however how much of this is down to the improved mastering over the red book CD and how much to the increased resolution is still a moot point.

[JimC]

Glad it's got more interest this time around so thanks Quicky82 for re-posting. I, as I suspect like you, have your own opinions but just wanted to see what others, interested in our 'hobby' (?) thought.

I myself am more than happy with 16/44.1 and as yet (though I hope I have an open enough mind (and ears) to be convinced otherwise) have not heard any higher resolution music that has made me think ''.....wow, that is better....''.

I am not skilled enough in the mathematics (I don't need to be to be able to fix the stuff!!) to be able to refute any claims within the article we are discussing but thought there was some relevant points which seemed to make sense to me.

I shall continue along my 16/44.1 path untill I do hear something better but will keep listening.

Cheers all,

James.

[Quicky82]

James: Absolutely! I'm the same; I was hoping someone more knowledgable than me might be able to come at the issue from the other side. Perhaps refute some points in the article in the same clear, well-cited way the original author has presented his argument.

As far as I'm concerned, I would like to learn from others' opinions and knowledge.

I'm like you at the moment, 16/44.1 sounds great (on well-recorded/mastered discs) but I'm open to start going down the high-res route if it's better.

Macca: I agree that if it sounds better, that's what matters. For me personally though, I would say that it DOES matter whether it's the mastering or the resolution because if it's not the resolution then I can save money on buying music (not buying more expensive high-res files) and space (and money!) on the storage media to store my music on.

I see what you're saying about why the high res formats exist in the first place. Surely a lot of research would have been done into these formats and their benefits at the outset of their development; I wonder if any of this is available online?

[drrd]

I think it's almost impossible to pick this issue apart with commercial releases because you don't know which variables have been changed. It's easier if you take a good DSD recording and use something like Korg Audiogate to convert to PCM and play around with the settings. You then have the same data on which to try out all the 'tricks' of digital audio, you can keep the sample rate the same and try different bit depths, keep the bit depth the same and try different sample rates +/- noise shaping&dither for each case. There are differences but tbh I don't think it's as big a deal as it's sometimes made out to be.

[WOStantonCS100]

My test was rather simple:

Get hold of high resolution master recorder (capable of both 16/44.1 & 24/192 (& DSD))
Find a reference point (analog input signal)
Make a recording in 16/44.1
Make a recording in 24/192
Compare the recordings NOT to each other, subjectively; but, to the reference point, objectively
Ask which sounds truer/closest to the reference

Overwhelmingly and without hesitation, every time and in every way, 24/192 won. YMV.

What I see as the real problem is that the "music biz" has made high rez a talking point and cheapened the experience and the value of the advancement in the mind/ear of the audiophile by not using the analog direct to high rez formula; but instead, inserting sample rate upconverted lower rez, purposefully confusing the issue for the sake of profit... again. :doh: But, to blow off the achievement of high rez because of the "4M" (money making marketing machine), I believe, would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Reel to reel running at 15 ips may not sound any better than a poorly produced cassette if it was derived from that cassette. Yet, I know of no one who disregards 15 ips for that reason. There is the ready knowledge that the format is capable of so much more. The reference was not ever what reel could do with cassette. It's always been about what it can do with a mic feed (the reference point). Why are we not looking at the high rez format(s) in the same way. Seems silly to me. However, I seem to be opinionated on this issue. :)

[JimC]

How much is being recorded in Hi-Res these days? I mean in the 'mainstream' output.

Bob Dylan's latest for example, is only available via his web-site as MP3. So the CD being the best resolution available.
Was the music recorded digitally and if so, 16/44.1 or higher?

If it was recorded in a higher resolution then I can understand the need for a DAC of the same bit length and sampling frequency (I am not yet convinced I would be able to tell the difference but open to the fact I may) but this doesn't seem to be available to purchase.

[Ali Tait]

I thought most stuff was recorded at 24/96 these days?

[Tim]

I thought most stuff was recorded at 24/96 these days?
AFAIK it is Ali, still not a massive amount out there yet but that should change as more websites and bands start to offer a choice. NaimLabel offer a wide choice of formats. However, the number of customers who are going to want 24/96 are going to be in the minority, so I doubt it will ever catch on for all releases, which is a shame. What it needs is somebody like Apple to offer it via iTunes to show people what is possible, but that's very unlikely to happen from those money grabbing bastards :rolleyes:

If it does, I'll eat my hat ;)

[bobbasrah]

AFAIK it is Ali, still not a massive amount out there yet but that should change as more websites and bands start to offer a choice.

I think the point Ali was making that it is RECORDED at high resolution.;)
That is why the MMMM is hyping it up as they can sell you what you already have at higher resolution, and higher cost.:rolleyes:

PS Tim - Get the hat ready as iTunes was already in final negotiation to release 24/48 if I recollect correctly...

[Nevalti]

Extract from that article:
"In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate, and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!"

A very interesting article but the above quote is the relevant bit for those who reject the science and prefer to rely upon their ears. A double blind test is needed, set up by a 'believer' using equipment they think will reveal the difference. Any volunteers?

The 'different master' hypothesis probably has a lot of validity. About 10% of my CDs are noticeably better than the rest. Assuming that is due to better mastering then we can not separate out that factor without a double blind test of a 24/192 against a 16/44.1 made from the same master. Again - any volunteers?

Similarly, if more attention is paid to mastering for SACD, and it probably is, that could also account for the better sound that some report from SACD.

We are subjected to snake oil in various guises BUT science has also provided 'perfect solutions' which have been audibly awful. CDs, to start with, were nowhere near as good as LPs but, in my humble opinion, that has now reversed. The ordinary CD is now perfectly acceptable and even better in some ways than vinyl.

The question is, will we, one day, view 24/192 as snake oil or a wonderful improvement that was not appreciated initially?

[bobbasrah]

Another factor to consider Martin is the way that the DAC circuit and filters behave for the different inputs. It is not linear behaviour.

Mastering is undoubtedly the greatest influence, although upsampling original 16bit rather embarassingly screwed up the marketing of HiRez for some companies.

Taking the same analogue source and sampling at 24bit to 96 and 192 made no difference to my ears. The 16 bit I have of the same album does not sound so good, but that is where mastering may be different.

In the short term, apart from a few suppliers such as HDTracks, 24/48 by iTunes will probably be more widely promoted, and their established mp3 market will most definitely notice the improvement.

I cannot see 192 taking off anytime soon due to file size, but as storage capacities increase, it could.

[Nevalti]

Another factor to consider Martin is the way that the DAC circuit and filters behave for the different inputs. It is not linear behaviour........

Yes, absolutely any equipment variables may affect the sound so a test is needed using a variety of similar equipment to see if the same results are achieved.

The glaring omission in that very interesting article was actual oscilloscope traces of test tones recorded in 16/44.1 versus 24/192 etc. There were plenty of sketches and convincing scientific explanations that the sine wave would be 'perfect' but no actual illustrations using a 'scope.

My suspicion is that the sine wave would be better with 'hi-res'. It may well be that the 16/44.1 result is considered 'perfect' by the designers but some people may well be able to hear minute improvements offered by 'hi-res'.

Surely someone on this forum has the equipment to do a simple 'scope test with test tones?

[StanleyB]

Surely someone on this forum has the equipment to do a simple 'scope test with test tones?
Been there, done it and the only difference I could see a better definition in minute signal excursions. So instead of the minute signals being more like straight edged they are more rounded off.

[Nevalti]

Been there, done it and the only difference I could see a better definition in minute signal excursions. So instead of the minute signals being more like straight edged they are more rounded off.

I presume you mean that there was no obvious improvement.

I think we are all waiting with baited breath Stan........

1. Do you agree with that very interesting article?

2. Can you hear any improvement using hi-res instead of standard CD?

[StanleyB]

I presume you mean that there was no obvious improvement.

You presume wrong. My reply was with respect to what differences that could be seen. It is quite clear that constitutes an obvious improvement in the observed waveform. But I did not see any green Martians or scrolling messages.


2. Can you hear any improvement using hi-res instead of standard CD?
I can. I make a living out of listening to differences and then designing things that can reproduce those differences.

[WOStantonCS100]

In an email I received from Acoustic Sounds:

"Each of these LPs was created from 24-bit/192 kHz files prepared for the 2009 CDs; the files were sourced from the original master tapes. The files were cut to lacquer at the famed Abbey Road Studios. It was a painstaking process with maximum attention paid to every detail!"

[nat8808]

Here's another instance of this article appearing in a thread on here:

theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16828

[nat8808]

To me that article was very cut-and-paste with a bit of arrogance thrown in.

Not the kind of writing to convince me of anything, more likely to make me take the opposite view in reaction!

The problem with the article IMO is that it appears to pick and choose the science and anecdotes to support the writer's beliefs and not to investigate the matter in order to discover anything new.

[nat8808]

From the previous thread, I find PaulStewart's post very interesting:

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=310707&postcount=11


Yes this is an interesting article from a technical point of view and I thank Bob for pointing me in that direction but I have to agree with Simon that he, "doesn't actually say 'dick' in that article, other than reiterate the old 'you can't hear above 20 kHz' line". *In the late 70s/early 80s, when we were looking at the beginnings of digital domestic reproduction, I was involved in a series of experiments to research the desired upper and lower frequency limits of any such reproduction system. *The manufacturer I was working for, already had amplifiers that, theoretically worked from DC up to well over 100k, so I took advantage of that technology. *

As an aside, and partially relevant to something in the article, the upper frequency response did produce a problem for one customer who kept blowing tweeters with one of our top end wide band amps because he lived near Heathrow and in a certain configuration, his set up would pick the landing radar and the HF pulses would be amplified enough to blow the tweeters. *We also had a more common problem with one of our budget amps, which if plugged into a ring main system, picked up Radio Moscow when it came on air on short wave, causing the amps to cook themselves. *

But to get back to the matter in hand, following on from some finding in the HiFi press by Graham Holliman, we conducted some research, which involved 2 groups of 50 people in the Rainbow Theatre in London in a double blind testing, where we had a reproduction system that would go from 10Hz to 32kHz and the ability to switch the extremes above 20k and below 20Hz in and out. *The listeners were played a series of analogue recordings, recorded on half inch stereo masters, that had been recorded at 30 inches per second and some tracks that had been mastered on an early digital system that utilised high band U-Matic tapes. *The digital systems were brick wall filtered in the 20 Hz - 20 kHz that became the norm for CD and the listeners were asked to mark on a card, which they "preferred", which gave them the most sense of "realism and location" of sounds and which they preferred from a point of view of "tonality". *The combination which came out on top in 87% of the respondents, was the analogue with the full band width. *Further experimentation proved, and I am not going to give all the details here - it was a 26 page document - that it was precisely the brain's ability to detect but not hear the sounds below 20 Hz, which very much aided the perception of "reality" to the reproduction, with the whole of the basilar membrane being vibrated by pressure waves which were passing through the body by these lower frequencies, so there is a physical effect on the body. *Also, with the second group, we tried cutting out the HF but leaving the LF and this did not get as good results as the full band width. *We concluded that, in much the same way as a bat picks up reflections and inter-modulations of sound to localise objects, the brain detects inter-modulations between the higher non audible frequencies those in the audible band and this is what helps ear/brain to localise and position objects, so it is really not all about hearing. *It is about band width, both in the recording and reproduction systems. *

Be good if he could or did get hold of the old study report.

[drrd]

My test was rather simple:

Get hold of high resolution master recorder (capable of both 16/44.1 & 24/192 (& DSD))
Find a reference point (analog input signal)
Make a recording in 16/44.1
Make a recording in 24/192
Compare the recordings NOT to each other, subjectively; but, to the reference point, objectively
Ask which sounds truer/closest to the reference

Overwhelmingly and without hesitation, every time and in every way, 24/192 won. YMV.


Sorry a bit late on the reply and Bob has already made some good points. I absolutely agree with your findings. The question is why 192 sounds better than 44.1 and I'm most interested in what you actually need to encode in the AD process before you start to make compromises. Thing is that if you have a DAC system that has solid clocking, high performance filters and that upsamples to a high rate then 44.1 doesn't (in my experience) lose much at all to higher sample rate encoding. So to me the science behind PCM does actually stand up, X sample rate = Y bandwidth, same for bit depth and dynamic range. What you get between 20-20K with 44.1 is exactly what you get between 20-20K with 96k but you get a bit extra at the top and bottom with 96K.

I'm sure filtering does play a part and that the filters get close to the audio range with 44.1 but again my real-world experience, except for slightly wacky apodising varieties, is that good filters are pretty transparent.
I wish I could get massive gains with high sample rates, I can record right up to DSD and I chose to keep my vinyl recordings in DSD as an archive format, but tbh converting the files to 44.1/24 just sounds fine. Really the main issues with digital are not these number games, it's solid engineering in clock and data routing and conversion. And on the plus side those old CDs that used to sound a bit crap back in the day now sound great with a modern DAC.

[bobbasrah]

Sorry a bit late on the reply and Bob has already made some good points. I absolutely agree with your findings. The question is why 192 sounds better than 44.1 .......

Not sure if you saw this link Daniel put up at the bottom of page 1, quite interesting from the professional recording perspective...
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16720