Stereophile says 24/96 is the Future of Audio - Agree?

Jim, standard stereo 2.8224MHz DSD files require only 1000000bits/s of bandwidth more than 24/96 files. 128x DSD is a bit more bandwidth hungry format, it needs ~11,3Mb/s (2Mb/s more than 24/192) but an USB2.0 interface shouldn't have any problem handling this data rate.

 

You could transport DSD (2.8 Mbit/sec) over USB1 (≤ 12 Mbit/sec) -- hell, on a good day you could almost transport it over my cheesy DSL connection.

Over a USB2 (≤ 480 Mbit/sec) or USB3 (≤ 4 Gbit/sec) connection, a DSD datastream wouldn't even lift the needle off the peg.

 

Isn't USB bad for audio quality? That's something I've read many times before. How does Firewire perform when transferring audio data?

 

Thanks!

 

I don't see how USB is bad, but some people don't like it for whatever reason. There are some high end firewire DACs as well. Firewire is natively ASYNC.

 

Was just checking out this thread over at Hydrogen Audio: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74123&st=0

I got the sense that as near as there is to a consensus among the membership there holds that one cannot objectively discern 24/96 from CD quality, properly compared.

 

Hi metalmunk84,

Firewire was designed from the start for streaming audio and video.
I can stream multiple channels over Firewire at 24/192 without a hiccup.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hmm! I just mastered a whole series of tapes to 48/24 and had to convert some of them to 16 bit for distributing CD's. I can easily play and compare both sets of files on the Transporter and the difference between the two is not insignificant, particularly in terms of lower level detail and three dimensionality. I'm not sure that the difference between 48k and 96k or 192k is nearly as significant as going from 16 bit to 24 bit.

On one set, Maggie and Terre Roche, for some reason I started the recording with a pretty low level which I eventually raised by about 20db after a short intro. After transferring we raised the level of the intro to try to compensate for this. On the older 16 bit versions the noise and hash become an issue where as on the 24 bit versions it was much less of a problem. I guess this makes some sense, but I couldn't believe the difference.

It's not so easy to notice the added noise on the 24 bit renderings where it sticks out like a sore thumb on the older 16 bit versions. Granted the 16 bit versions of this one were originally mastered in 1996 by using the built in ADC of a DAT machine vs the recent 24 bit versions which used a UA 2192 ADC.

Of course the converters in the UA and the care we used in mastering were better than in my 1996 versions, but I believe most of the difference in this situation was because we mastered in 24 bit depth.

 

Hey Doug, thanks for the post. I was kind of surprised by that HA discussion myself. To be sure, this wasn't stated, but it almost implies that better-than-CD quality cannot be heard. Definitely contrary to my own subjective experience (though I'm not going to argue my subjective experience has any validity). Frankly, I couldn't follow the discussion on what was necessary to set up an appropriate comparison, so I won't be testing myself anytime soon. For now I'll still buy higher-rez downloads where available (holding out hope that one day I'll have the gear to do it justice, and won't want to buy new downloads) . . . I wonder if there's some more information on this question.

 

I don't think anyone in that thread is making anywhere near that broad a claim. It's pretty clear from the discussion that the extensive processing required to create ABX-able files from the sources available could explain why nobody can really discern a difference.

 

on a number of occasions, here and on other lists, people quite savvy with computers and digital audio have found that for all sorts of reasons their setups weren't putting out the high-res bit rates when they thought they were.

Not to mention the source snafus that we discuss here all the time...

 

Audio MIDI Set Up

Somewhere in this lengthy thread someone brought up the Audio MIDI Set Up on a Mac. If I could squeeze in one question about that I would appreciate it. I know that 24/96 will not be automatically recognized and selected. Once you have made the change in Audio MIDI Set Up what happens when you wish to play 16/44 files? Are they processed properly with the setting at 24/96 or do you have to switch the setting back each time?
Sorry for and thank you for the little intrusion.

 

From my experience, the 16/44 stream will be up sampled to 24/96 by OSX. Seems to do a good job.

BTW, I tried a blind test between 16/44 up sampled to 24/96 vs native 24/96 a few months back and failed the test miserably :-(. Guess my 38 y.o. ears suck...

Like others say though, this isn't gonna stop me from acquiring hi-Res if available...

 

From my reading, if you are running iTunes, you have to quit iTunes, flip the MIDI back, then restart iTunes. Almarra relieves you of this task - you can switch resolution with it running.

(this may have nothing to do with your question. )

 

Actually it does because I believe that was part the the discussion/issue. However in the couple of days since I added my new DAC I have turned the 24/96 on and off without restarting iTunes (which would confuse me since it is the Mac OS that is involved in the controll and not iTunes) and the DAC is registering the correct sampling rate.

 

Check out post #64 in that thread. I think he is absolutely making that broad a claim: "And yes, I don't believe in your results (or at least conclusions). It is against anything known, that has been conducted in a controlled environment. There is no audible difference for 24/96 for humans at the listening levels we have had here" (emphasis mine).

Now I don't know whether that person is stating anything close to a generally held opinion at HA, but it was that post in particular, and some of the other posts from members who set up tests and could not distinguish CD-quality from 24/92, that got me wondering.

 

The Panasonic portable DVD players DVD-LS86; LS83, & LS855PK have 2496 audio chip sets for hirez playback.

 

I would imagine that the kind of music being used in the test could impact it. If it doesn't have much info above 20 khz, then the filters used aren't going to have as much of an impact.

 

-------------------------
Then the system being reviewed is not very resolving. It is very easy to hear the diff between redbook and 24/96.

 

-----------------------
Barry is absolutely right, but he doesn't need me to back him up.

USB is prone to jitter as Cambridge Audio stated when using a laptop with a pulse powersupply and their DAC Magic. On battery it was fine. It is a great DAC by the way, but USB to 48khz.

I am more surprised by the fact that many new laptops are not coming with a firewire port. A huge mistake in my view.

I will be curious to see the test reports on the new RME Hammerfall USB BabyFace. It will be out this fall. At $749 it may be a steal...if it handles all the sampling steps and the jitter is low.

 

The RME cards are outstanding...

 

? It read the mostly opposite to me...it reads like there's a rare report of 24/96 vs 16/44 listening test difference on another Hydrogen Audio thread dating from 2009, and it looks to me like most of the people on the thread in question are explaining reasons why such difference result might be an artifact of processing.


Such comparisons are not straight forward to do, because for example you have to ensure you aren't really comparing DACs or filters. Also it has to be double blind for Hydrogen Audio. With all due respect I doubt even Doug Sclar's report above would pass method muster by that standard.

 

The Hydrogen guys are inexperienced. Anyone who has done even a modest amount of hirez recording understands the value of 24/96 over 16/44. It's simply not subtle, no matter how good the 16/44 playback is.

It seems to me we have two audiophiles - those that listen to music, seek out the best, and enjoy it and those that debate the scientific merits endlessly.

I don't want to shut down the technical debate if it is done in an open-minded way and subjective assessments are included...after all, you cannot measure everything we hear. Sadly I see little open-mindedness at Hydrogen.

As for predictions of the future, well that's always hard. It's sadly and increasingly clear to me that physical media is getting harder to find. Will 24/96 FLAC become the future? I don't know but it will depend on issues like selection, cost, bandwidth and the competition. Indeed, it may depend most on if iTunes offers it.

 

That's exactly how I read that discussion. Again, I have no point of view on the specific question myself, or adequate information on which to base a point of view. But that was what they seemed to be saying there.

 

I see 24/96 becoming more of a recording standard, even in cheap flash audio recorders like the ones from Zoom. There's no reason not to record in 24/96, and since you can distribute 24/96 audio on regular old DVD-R discs, playable on any DVD player, there's no need to downsample your recordings for playback.

As far as 24/96 becoming a dominant mass-consumer "format", sure, why not? Professional audio mastering is done on hi-res computer consoles, anyway. Just give me the files. Of course, I've got a music server, so I'm completely ready. For others, it would require a fresh mindset.