24/96

[Jac Hawk]

I've just got myself a DVD-A / SACD player and i was wondering if it was worth while recording my 16/44.1 flac files ito 24/96 format, would it have any sonic advantages, or would it be a waste of time?

[Reid Malenfant]

Hi Mike, i'm sure it would but i can't see how you'd do it? :scratch:

[Jac Hawk]

dbpoweramp mate, you can change htz and bit rate, so i would convert flac files to 24/96 wav or wma files then use dvd audio solo to copy onto dvd-a format.

i just was wondering if it would be a pointless exercise?

[Reid Malenfant]

Ah, now i see how you could do it :D

I'd suggest you give it a go on some really dynamic recording & see what happens :) You only need to try it once & if it is a waste of time you'll soon know, what's the cost of a bit of messing & a single DVDR :)

[Jac Hawk]

True, the thing is the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit recordings are only marginal, you can hear the difference but it's not always obvious, it can depend as much on how well the master was produced, so sometimes you want to hear an improvement that isn't really there, i just didn't want to go down the path before finding out off other members who might have done it, or could say for sure it's worth while

[Welder]

Can’t see this one tbh.
There is kit around that can make a decent job of interpolation apparently but it’s still adding samples to the existing information. Whether or not the extra samples make the music sound better is a matter of opinion.
You may gain headroom converting to 24 bits but you don’t get any more information, just less noise possibly.
Adding frequency I just can’t see at all. It’s either there or it isn’t :scratch:

[Reid Malenfant]

Well whenever i listen to a CD these days it's upsampled to 24bit & spat out to the DAC at 64x fs (DSD) & the difference between standard CD & what i listen to is noticeable :eyebrows:

I won't say night & day as it isn't, but lets just say i'm very happy even if it cost an arm & a leg :D But you need a system that makes the differences more obvious, it wouldn't have the same effect on speakers that weren't capable of wide bandwidth reproduction or accuracy.

I wouldn't be surprised if you noticed a difference on those Castles of yours though ;) The tweeters on them are rather good...

[Welder]

Hmm, I wouldn’t be expecting a lot tbh Mike, Mark has possibly the best available interpolation kit on the market and if anything can make a decent job of it, his dCS can.
Dbpoweramp…….hmm, well let us know.

[Jac Hawk]

ok i've just burnt a 24/96 DVD-A copy of Elton John "Captain Fantastic" then dug the CD out, i've got them playing side by side, the DVD-A on my new Yammy DVDS2500 and the CD on my Pioneer PDS503, and there is a difference, not a big one, but the DVD is more lively, stereo image is slightly better, bass seems a little deeper too, hmmmm thing is it could just be the difference between the two machines, think i need to do more testing...

[WOStantonCS100]

Two sided question really. Does "upsampling" make Red Book easier on the ears? and Does it make sense to "hard code" or do it on the fly?

I purchased a universal player cable of upsampling. It's not the ultimate by any means but it does upsample to 88.2 and 176.4 instead of 96 or 192. (There are arguments for each way.) Not all; but, the majority of DDD and ADD CD's I play are noticeably easier to listen to. You know, that thing that Red Book tends to do to the high end is tamed quite a bit. However, on AAD CD's sometimes things can get a little lack-luster. In all cases it greatly depends on how things were recorded, mixed and mastered. What I don't necessarily think is a good use of my time is converting the CD's/files ahead of time when capable good sounding upsampling DAC's are available. I'm sure I could learn to live with a DACMagic if I had to. And, if for some reason I actually like the 16/44 version better I can simply turn off the upsampling and not have two copies of the same file/CD (or wish I still had the 16/44 version). Hence, why I bought an upsampling player. Just my experience and two cents, really...

[Stratmangler]

ok i've just burnt a 24/96 DVD-A copy of Elton John "Captain Fantastic" then dug the CD out, i've got them playing side by side, the DVD-A on my new Yammy DVDS2500 and the CD on my Pioneer PDS503, and there is a difference, not a big one, but the DVD is more lively, stereo image is slightly better, bass seems a little deeper too, hmmmm thing is it could just be the difference between the two machines, think i need to do more testing...

Try playing a single track on the Yammy, say "Philadelphia Freedom", alternating between the DVD disc and the CD.
Your current comparison is not a good one - the Pioneer DAC uses Legato Link processing, and will sound different to the Yammy.

[Reid Malenfant]

the Pioneer DAC uses Legato Link processing, and will sound different to the Yammy.
which is another attempt at extending the bandwidth :eyebrows:

[Stratmangler]

which is another attempt at extending the bandwidth :eyebrows:

And your point is ?
The current situation is comparing apples to bananas:)

[Reid Malenfant]

In actuality there wasn't a point, it was just a comment in passing ;)

Legato was just about adding harmonics to the signal of upper frequencies & extending (or at least attempting to) the audio bandwidth above 22KHz..

Why the heck are you asking me what my point is anyway? :scratch:

[Jac Hawk]

well i've done a bit of disk swapping, recorded some more stuff on 24/96, and there is a difference, not something you can really put your finger on, the higher sample rate gives the music a more natural feel, less digital if you get my meaning, and stereo imaging is better too, not a lot but it is better.

So the next question is, does anyone know where i can get about 4000 blank DVD's on the cheap?:scratch:

[Reid Malenfant]

So the next question is, does anyone know where i can get about 4000 blank DVD's on the cheap?:scratch:
When i used to bulk buy they worked out at about 12p each for 100. Tbh it has been so long since i bought any that i can't remember where the hell i got them from :eyebrows:

[Stratmangler]

well i've done a bit of disk swapping, recorded some more stuff on 24/96, and there is a difference, not something you can really put your finger on, the higher sample rate gives the music a more natural feel, less digital if you get my meaning, and stereo imaging is better too, not a lot but it is better.

So the next question is, does anyone know where i can get about 4000 blank DVD's on the cheap?:scratch:

It's cheaper to buy a Squeezebox Touch and use that instead.

[WOStantonCS100]

4000 blank DVD's!! :eek: Well, at least you have "buying in bulk" on your side.

I've still gotta buy 1000 blank cassettes and 500 blank reels! :eyebrows: That's off topic, though. :lol:

[Jac Hawk]

It's cheaper to buy a Squeezebox Touch and use that instead.

you are probably right, but there's somthing about having music on disks that i like, i'm just getting old i guess, plus i don't have to worry about backing up the HDD or data corruption with a CD or DVD as long as it's kept safe and not used as a coaster, not that it's a big issue, my entire collection is on HDD anyway and it doesn't cause me to loose any sleep, but most of my original CD's are in spain still and if my HDD's did go wrong i'd have a job getting my originals sent back to me, also having a hard copy is always nice.

[WAD62]

dbpoweramp mate, you can change htz and bit rate, so i would convert flac files to 24/96 wav or wma files then use dvd audio solo to copy onto dvd-a format.

i just was wondering if it would be a pointless exercise?

I wonder how the dBpoweramp plugin compares to other resamplers like SoX for example, or even of it uses SoX under the covers.

I'm using FFSoX with winamp to real time resample to 24/88.2 (from 16/44.1 FLAC) with pleasing results...

[lurcher]

ok i've just burnt a 24/96 DVD-A copy of Elton John "Captain Fantastic" then dug the CD out, i've got them playing side by side, the DVD-A on my new Yammy DVDS2500 and the CD on my Pioneer PDS503, and there is a difference, not a big one, but the DVD is more lively, stereo image is slightly better, bass seems a little deeper too, hmmmm thing is it could just be the difference between the two machines, think i need to do more testing...

I guess the only real way to check would be to create a DVD-A from the CD data and compare that and the real DVD-A.

Can't help thinking that 24/88.2 would be a better target that 24/96, 96k would require a lot more interpolation (read: making it up)

[Jac Hawk]

I guess the only real way to check would be to create a DVD-A from the CD data and compare that and the real DVD-A.


True, but that's not really the mission, all i'm trying to find out is, that if i rip a CD then hash into 24/96 then rerecord onto DVD-A will i get any benifit i.e. will i hear a difference, like i've said in previous posts, i think there is a difference, not something that will knock yer socks off, but the music does sound better.

[WAD62]

True, but that's not really the mission, all i'm trying to find out is, that if i rip a CD then hash into 24/96 then rerecord onto DVD-A will i get any benifit i.e. will i hear a difference, like i've said in previous posts, i think there is a difference, not something that will knock yer socks off, but the music does sound better.

...probably similar to the improvement I get upsampling using winamp/FFSoX, there's a noticeable improvement to the smoothness of the top end, not massive but certainly worth having, and as it requires no effort from me I'll be leaving it switched on at 24/88.2.

I do think that these algorithms will improve (not sure about the dBpoweramp one), so I think their best application is as real time plugins for file playback. ;)

[Welder]

I’m still somewhat skeptical about this hi res business.
I can’t hear the difference between identical recordings at redbook and 24/96 on my system anyway.
My main concern isn’t that extra detail can’t be had, it’s more that the average amp can’t handle it and most speakers cut off at 20kHz so any high frequency benefits wont be heard.
I have to accept that people say it makes an audible difference to them, but until I can afford high bandwidth amplification I’m going to stick to just trying to get redbook sounding right.

[dave2010]

This is quite interesting. I believe that theoretically the exercise should be pointless, but theory doesn't always get things right. I have experimented with image processing, and it's pretty generally true that quadrupling the number of pixels used for displaying a low resolution image doesn't give a substantial improvement in quality. This also depends on how the upsampling is done, but my view is that there can be a slight improvement. I reckon that I can normally increase the (linear) size of a small thumbnail image by a factor of around 1.3 to 2 and make it more slightly recognisable - but it is subjective. There's no point in trying to blow up small images to really large sizes - it just doesn't work. More active (non-linear) tinkering with the images may give better improvements - for examples see Li and Orchard's work - example - http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2 Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.59.9594%26rep%3Drep1%26ty pe%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=Orchard%20and%20Li%20new%20edget%20interpolation&ei=J65oTciZMoOq8AP44rHyBw&usg=AFQjCNH5uBkHpLk0f12ftltlK0oHsDmjAw&cad=rja amongst others.

In the audio domain I think it's possible you'll get a slightly smoother, less edgy sound. If you do find this there may be many reasons, including the interaction between the playback kit and the data, which may appear to be spurious, but if you like the results let us know.

There may be ways of improving audio in recordings which, as in image processing, depend on non-linear processing.

[Welder]

I’m glad someone else finds the subject interesting.

Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R. JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

It would seem that if there are any benefits they are not easily heard. One of the problems is of course getting identical tracks in all but bit depth and frequency.
A large proportion of hi res material has been re-mastered and comparisons to standard redbook become meaningless.

[Ali Tait]

A good point. Any perceived improvement may be down to the remastering and not the increased resolution.

[Jac Hawk]

Ok i would go along with the "it's only a very marginal improvement and it does depend on the material" however isn't this what makes us different from your average stereo system buyer? wanting to take the next step, go just a little further in the persuit of perfection. Anyway that's one of the reasons i'm doing it.

By the way i've just recorded Joss Stone "Soul Sessions" onto 24/96 DVD-A and it sounds awesome, i mean a big improvement over my CD copy, the bass seems deeper and more precise and the higher frequency is again more precise, giving a much better stereo image too. All i can say is i'm very pleased with the results :)

[Welder]

Hmm, no, I don’t think that is what makes audiophiles different from the average stereo buyer. I think it’s a bit more complicated than that :eyebrows:

In your example above though, you’re not doing a direct comparison between a redbook file and a higher res file, you’ve made other alterations which may effect the sound quality.

[Jac Hawk]

Hmm, no, I don’t think that is what makes audiophiles different from the average stereo buyer. I think it’s a bit more complicated than that :eyebrows:

In your example above though, you’re not doing a direct comparison between a redbook file and a higher res file, you’ve made other alterations which may effect the sound quality.

to go into every little detail about what makes an audiophile different to an average stereo listener would take me all day, but obsession would be a good starting word.

with regards to my DVD-A recording, i did the following, 1st ripped to lossless FLAC/WMA then upsampled to 24/96 using dBpoweramp, then created an image file using cirlina DVD Audio Solo, then burned to disk using Roxio Pro

[WAD62]

Can't help thinking that 24/88.2 would be a better target that 24/96, 96k would require a lot more interpolation (read: making it up)

I have to agree Nick, I've done a little research into the SoX algorithm and from my numpty understanding of it, the best it can hope to do is slot a new sample in between A and B based on an 'average' between them, hence using a 'multiple of' the original sample rate will give it more to work with, and is indeed a recommended setting.

Less sophisticated algorithms will simply echo A and then B etc. a bit like the processing on 100hz TV.

I can hear an improvement in sound at the top end, not massive but noticable, now the question is 'is this because of the additional made up data', or that simply my DAC (in this case M-Audio 2496 SC) works better at these sample rates/bit depths i.e 24/88.2 as opposed to 16/44.1 ? :scratch:

[Welder]

Yeah, sure obsessive is an element. Once you have obsession, delusion isn’t a great step though :eyebrows:
What’s important is people are happy with the sound they hear. If I cant hear the reported improvements then I guess it’s my loss.

[Ali Tait]

For myself, I wouldn't say there's a real improvement in SQ, it's more that soundstage depth is increased, giving better imaging, or at least appearing to.I find the actual sound quality is little if at all changed.A good recording is a good recording, regardless of whether it's high rez or not.

[Jac Hawk]

For myself, I wouldn't say there's a real improvement in SQ, it's more that soundstage depth is increased, giving better imaging, or at least appearing to.I find the actual sound quality is little if at all changed.A good recording is a good recording, regardless of whether it's high rez or not.

Exactly ;)

[dave2010]

Any form of resampling may introduce some errors - whether it be up sampling or downsampling. For downsampling it's usually important to use anti-aliasing filters to ensure that unwanted frequencies don't get into the final result. Upsampling perhaps ought to be easier, but there are still some issues. Simple rate conversion, by integer factors (e.g up 2, down 2) are usually not too bad, but some conversion is not by such simple factors. For one reason or another (not actually sure why) there is often a need to change from 48 to 44.1 kHz or vice versa, or to some multiple of these frequencies. This can be done fairly well in some cases, or in some cases very poorly. A poor sample conversion system will probably (almost certainly) introduce more problems than potential improvements. I'm assuming that any resampling system used in order to try to obtain benefits of higher resolution will be done well, as otherwise the damage caused by resampling will probably outweigh any putative benefits. The audio may sound different, but not necessarily better.