Disturbing facts regarding 24bit and 16 bit tracks of same material...

[DSJR]

I think it's well worth posting this link here for you to take a look at -

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=6336

Apologies if this is treading old ground, but it seems that Linn are marketing "inferior" 16 bit and MP3 downloads to the original studio master 24 bit files, not because of the 24 bit format being audibly superior as suggested by them, but because the 16 bit and MP3 files have been mastered in a different session for reduced dynamic range and sometimes clipped by a third party, thus giving a skewed view of the merits of the 24 bit masters, which haven't been tampred with at all.

This thread linked to gives examples of downloaded 24 bit tracks which the purchaser has then himself converted to hi-rate MP3's, the results being all but identical to the perceived sonics of the 24 bit original, as well it should be.

I think I have this right, but bit-rate is more an indication of the available noise floor. FM radio in the UK at its best wwas around 13 bits, giving a s/n of about 65 - 70 db I believe. Red book 16 bit CD offers 96db, where most rock and pop music only uses around 20 to 30db of this. Increased resolution of 96/192kHz may well give better results due to the superior filtering involved, although the best red-book players seem to have long ago got round this.

These days, with high speed broadband/download services and higher volume of memory at low cost, the need to squidge tracks into an MP3 style format is far less necessary, but to deliberately hobble CD reproduction in the need to make it as loud as possible is totally wrong to me, especially with the best DACs of yesteryear and cheap modern DACs being so capable these days..

Any thoughts - and this is one thread on that forum I do agree with, with respect to JC and others. I don't think Ash has it right saying that "analogue" is 11 bit (un-Dolby'd cassettes possibly), but the views by others there are interesting to read methinks..

[Macca]

I've always found MP3 to be dreadfully poor. Not even good enough for background music. Compact cassette was better even through a budget deck. I find it odd that some other people seemingly cannot tell the difference between an MP3 recording (at whatever bit rate) and the CD of the same.

[Stratmangler]

I've always found MP3 to be dreadfully poor. Not even good enough for background music. Compact cassette was better even through a budget deck. I find it odd that some other people seemingly cannot tell the difference between an MP3 recording (at whatever bit rate) and the CD of the same.

MP3 can sound very good, and much depends upon the care taken in ripping the source material in the first place.
Some MP3 files are superb - the vinyl transfers of Robert Fripp's personal King Crimson album copies being one such case in point.

[Ali Tait]

Yes agreed, good mp3 at 320kb/s is hard to tell from 16 bit if done well.

[DSJR]

I'm not really trying to promote MP3's here, just trying to establish a level playing field to enable 320 MP3's to give their best. It would appear that in this case, they're not being given their best, any more than the donor 16 bit CD tracks were.

I fear that similar things may be being done with SA-CD discs of established material, the mastering engineers really pulling out the stops to get the very best sonics out of the tapes/files they're presented with by the record companies... The CD's of similar material may or may not be comparable...

[f1eng]

I don't think Ash has it right saying that "analogue" is 11 bit (un-Dolby'd cassettes possibly), but the views by others there are interesting to read methinks..

I read a white paper years ago about the studies carried out by Meridian when they were developing "MLP".
IIRC the wides range LP they tested had a dynamic range of 11-bit. Un-Dolby cassette would not be this good. Reel-to-reel tape is about the same as FM radio.
There has never been a domestic analogue system with a 16-bit dynamic range AFAIK.
Mind you, my listening room has a background noise of just under 40dB so a 16-bit system, if the amp and speakers could do it, would allow >130dB maximum at a level where the background noise was just audibile.
That is pretty well instant permanent deafness...
Thankfully there are no domestic audio systems actually capable of 16-bit dynamic range, despite the pseudo scientific marketing bs.

[Tim]

Yes agreed, good mp3 at 320kb/s is hard to tell from 16 bit if done well.
I have downloaded some VBR 320 mp3's that have sounded excellent and as you say it can be hard to tell - I have also got some shocking 320 files too, like anything its that care that goes into producing the file. I have CD FLAC rips that sound very poor indeed compared to some 320 mp3's. Its not a flat playing field when it comes to compressing a file.

[f1eng]

I'm not really trying to promote MP3's here, just trying to establish a level playing field to enable 320 MP3's to give their best. It would appear that in this case, they're not being given their best, any more than the donor 16 bit CD tracks were.

I fear that similar things may be being done with SA-CD discs of established material, the mastering engineers really pulling out the stops to get the very best sonics out of the tapes/files they're presented with by the record companies... The CD's of similar material may or may not be comparable...

I think that this is becoming commonplace. If there is no audible improvement in higher than 16/44 digital, selling the 24/192 and MP3 versions with different mastering could be seen by the cynic as a marketing ploy to make people believe it is worth paying extra.
OTOH the charitable may argue that it makes sense to have more compression on the MP3 version since it is likely to be listened to on the move in noisy conditions whereas the 24/192 will be listened to in a quiet room on quality kit...

[DSJR]

Thanks for clarifying that point. 16 bit being as wide as it is, kinda makes the whole "loudness wars" issue a bit stupid, doesn't it.

I do remember when cheaper CD players tended to sound washed out on lower modulated CD's and just turning the volume up didn't seem to fix this. The failings were actually more to do with the analogue output drivers and their power supplies I reckon, although I have no proof of this.

[Ali Tait]

I use mp3 at 320 for music in the car. Sounds great to me.

[walpurgis]

This is a subject I don't know a lot about, but it seems to me rather analagous to digital photography, where people seem to think the pixel count is everything, when in actual fact having a decent lens is far more important.

[Patrick Dixon]

Mind you, my listening room has a background noise of just under 40dB so a 16-bit system, if the amp and speakers could do it, would allow >130dB maximum at a level where the background noise was just audibile.


It doesn't quite work like that though - otherwise you would only ever hear the loudest instrument in the band. The 'audibility' of the noise depends more on it's character than it's volume.

[DSJR]

This is a subject I don't know a lot about, but it seems to me rather analagous to digital photography, where people seem to think the pixel count is everything, when in actual fact having a decent lens is far more important.


This is an excellent simile, since the 24 bit tracks were done with a superior, or no lens at all, whereas the CD and MP3 masterings were done through an inferior lens, or at least some creative photoshopping, crushing the extreme black and white parts of the image, rather like freeview TV does...

[Gazjam]

the Sons of bitches.... :)

[f1eng]

It doesn't quite work like that though - otherwise you would only ever hear the loudest instrument in the band. The 'audibility' of the noise depends more on it's character than it's volume.

I am not sure I understand what you mean - or maybe I did not explain myself.
To be hopefully more clear what I mean is that in a full 16 bit system if there is no music, ie nominal silence, and one turns up the volume on the stereo until you can -just- hear the hiss, if there actually was a sound using all 16 bits it would be 96dB louder, which AFAIK no domestic hifi has ever been capable of. That is just quietest to loudest. Music level variation has nothing to do with this, as long as it stays within the 16bit range, which is trivial to achieve.

As far as MP3 goes compression algorithms work by discarding data which is at frequency and level such that it will be masked by the louder parts of the recording. This is a variable feast since the data on what is considered to be masked and what is considered to be audible is based on a large number of listening tests, and will probably never be definitive, ie we will never know what level of compression leads to a result indistinguishable from the original by ear.

Interestingly this masking effect is what allows record players to sound good despite their shortcomings. The various bits of hash and vibration pickup, since they are correlated with the music, can be kept at a low enough level to be masked by the music and/or enhance the music by adding a little low level reverb.

[synsei]

I think it is important to remember here that a poorly produced recording will sound lousy regardless of the format it is released on. In actual fact the higher the resolution the easier it should be to distinguish this.

[f1eng]

I think it is important to remember here that a poorly produced recording will sound lousy regardless of the format it is released on. In actual fact the higher the resolution the easier it should be to distinguish this.

I completely agree.
All the information I am aware of indicates that the recording quality way out-ranks the medium in terms of the quality of the final result.
I have great and awful sounding recordings on LP, CD, cassette, reel-to-reel and DAT. I do have a DCC machine as well but not enough recordings to demonstrate if it is true for DCC as well, though logically there is no reason why it should differ from the other formats.

[synsei]

Hi Frank,

The reason I posted the comment above is that I often listen to material via Spotify and despite only having an Unlimited account and I often discover well produced material to be very listenable indeed despite the limitations imposed on this type of account.

[hifi_dave]

As we had it in the 70's, there appears to be a specification numbers war going on. The higher the number, the better it is.

I have had explained to me that even 16 bit is domestically unobtainable. It is the equivalent of sitting in an anechoice chamber with ear plugs in and then instantaneously, stuffing your head into a 747 jet engine as it takes off. Just not possible, so why bother with 18, 24 and 32 bits.? No system can begin to reproduce this.
I read a white paper years ago about the studies carried out by Meridian when they were developing "MLP".
IIRC the wides range LP they tested had a dynamic range of 11-bit. Un-Dolby cassette would not be this good. Reel-to-reel tape is about the same as FM radio.
There has never been a domestic analogue system with a 16-bit dynamic range AFAIK.
Mind you, my listening room has a background noise of just under 40dB so a 16-bit system, if the amp and speakers could do it, would allow >130dB maximum at a level where the background noise was just audibile.
That is pretty well instant permanent deafness...
Thankfully there are no domestic audio systems actually capable of 16-bit dynamic range, despite the pseudo scientific marketing bs.