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

I've been taking raw files out of mastering on a 1TB hard drive and listening to them through the Squeezebox in the car on the way home. When I finally get home I transfer them to the right drive and I can access them immediately throughout the house, and at their full res. Can't get much easier than that.

Getting set up takes some time, but once you're there it's all a breeze and life changing.

 

Then that should be easy to demonstrate. Talking about final delivery format, not mixing/mastering. If it is easy to demonstrate, why are there few or no convincing demonstrations?

Well, you can't remove science from hi-fi. To my mind, seeking out the best implies avoiding the distraction of things that make little or no difference to the sound. I mean, let's imagine there is some gizmo out there which makes no audible difference to the sound, but costs a lot of money. That's money which could be spent on enjoying music. So good science helps, not hinders, the guy who is "just in it for the music" - which I'm guessing is most of us.

Barry Diament has kindly posted samples of high-res vs 16/44 here:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

I downloaded the Kote Moun Yo? I've played them on speakers and on headphones. I'd describe the difference as subtle, if indeed it is audible at all.

That might mean that my hearing is shot, or that my system is not "resolving" enough. I've tried a couple of different systems, and headphones, and enrolled my son who is 12 and can hear like a bat. No joy.

I would be interested in opinions on what is the minimum level of hardware good enough to hear these differences. Because I love music and I'm willing to invest in making it sound right - but not willing to invest in stuff that makes no audible difference. Money is too tight for that.

Alternatively, Lee, maybe you and Barry and a few others are one of a small minority who by chance or by training can hear differences most of us cannot. If so, then the difference might be worth it for you but not for most others.

Personally, and after the best research I can do, I think there is a lot of uncertainty here that only good science can resolve. It's a shame that so many seem to have entrenched positions one way or another and all too often aren't really willing to help the science forward; or are so sure they are "right", they will not concede other possibilities.

Tim

 

I doubt if it is only a minority who can hear differences.

For me it is immediately obvious. Redbook or DSD or DS downsampled to PCM 88.2 from the same mastering. 192 vs 44.1 of same masterings but different media technologies. I can pick out differences immediatly and know my preference. I can tell you my hearing isn't that good at all (limited upper frequency range and tinnitus all due to frequent childhood ear infections).

The differences are subtle to me too. It is about spaciousness, ambience, clarity, edginess. I know for sure that systems are more or less revealing as well. The brands I have chosen are known for their fast and revealing character and that suits my personal taste. {Though I see now you are in the same brand as I am, good choice }

Maybe it depends on the type of music you play? For me with BlueNote Jazz and Classical music it is always obvious. On the other hand with with Rock music or Heavy Metal (which I all abhor, sorry guys) I probably won't notice any differences. But I know Heavy Metal fans who definitely can hear differences too.

I sometimes wonder if people who don't hear any differences are expecting too big a change in the sound.

If those subtle differences are worth it for you, that is a matter of personal judgement, but for me it is. I enjoy a nice clear, spacious recording of 192kHz/24-bit much more than a veiled 44.1kHz/16-bit.

Just my two pence, but I also quite often wonder why people can't hear any difference.

 

I think this is a key. I can't speak for others but I'd imagine most of us who can hear the differences have trained our ears over the years to know what to listen for. Once you discover the differences they are much harder to miss.

Perhaps those who don't hear the differences are best not trying. It could ending up costing lots of money that you may not need to spend. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

 

OK, so you are going for the theory that some can/some can't.

To me this is also a matter of interest. What proportion of people can hear these differences? Is it more training or natural acuity? Why have such studies that I've seen, which included "golden ears" listeners as well as others, not shown this convincingly?

I wish some of you lived closer so you could pop round for some informal listening tests!

By the way, I'd add that I don't consider myself insensitive to subtle differences in sound in general. I have invested in hi-fi because I do hear differences that many of my friends claim are unimportant or inaudible. Things like LP pressing differences, CD mastering differences, and of course hi-fi hardware.

Tim

 

I haven't messed about with hi res PCM, but I have compared 5.6448 MHz DSD to CDRs of the same recording, both downsampled from the DSD files and recorded simultaneously on a HHB Burnit and on my system using Brystons driving ATC 50s the DSD is clearly superior, now I'm only using a Marantz CD-17 KI signature, so it may well be possible to get more out of the CDRs, but not enough for them to come close to the resolution and total lack of "digital" sound you get with the DSD files.

If I can find the time I'll downsample some files to hi res PCM and do a similar three way comparison.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone is going to start selling 5.6448 MHz DSD files, so in that sense it's not the futuire of audio, but with various companies bringing out DSD capable DACs and more recorders I do see it as a mastering/archive medium and a viable format for enthusiasts, also if I'm ever involved in recording again I'll do my best to make sure we have DSD masters so at least the option will be there to release them, or as hi res PCM come to that, I just wish we'd had this potential back in the nineties instead of being stuck with DAT masters.

 

Hi Tim,

First, as I mentioned on the Format Comparison page itself, in order to know you are comparing the files and not some aspect of your playback system, you must be positive your system is not performing any sort of sample rate conversion on any of the files or applying any dithering to any of the files. In other words, you must be sure you are listening to the files natively.

Next, performance with the high res files will be highly dependent of the quality of clocking (as well as the analog stages) in the DAC. In my experience, a number of DACs (including some professional units) actually perform worse at 192k than they do at 44.1k or 96k. The higher the sample rate, the greater the demands on the clocking and on the bandwidth of the analog stages. (Some manufacturers simply don't put rates higher than 96k in their units - their "white papers" on why notwithstanding. Metric Halo have already shown me just how important 4x rates like 176 and 192 are -- the reservations I've held about digital since 1983 have at last evaporated. With 4x rates done well, for my ears, a threshold is crossed and the results no longer sound like "great digital" - or "great analog". The recorder finally and truly gets out of the way.)

With units that can pass muster at the higher sample rates, setup of the rest of the system becomes more important. To my ears, one of the greatest differences is the (very clearly) increased sense of focus on the space in which the recorded event took place. For this to be as obvious as I've found it to be, the speakers/setup/room must be capable of revealing focus when it is present in the input signal. (On my lesser, bookshelf type systems, this is nowhere near as obvious as it is on the main, Maggie system.)

The CD version of my latest recording is one I'm very proud. But in comparison to the 24/ 192 original (which will be available in files-on-disc format), it is out of focus and sounds as if the air has been removed from the room. It is much harder to tell where the stage and room boundaries are, while it is quite clear on the 192 (and to a lesser extent on the 96k version). The 192k also offers more refined instrumental timbres, things that are coarsened on the CD version (perhaps largely due to the steep low pass filtering).

As to who will or will not hear what I described, I can't say. Experience has shown me that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. This is why I placed the different samples on the web site. Folks who want to purchase the album but don't hear any improvement with the higher sample rates and longer word length can find out ahead of time and then save money by purchasing the lower cost CD version. Folks who do hear improvements can then decide if these are worth the added expense for the higher res formats.

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

 

Thanks Barry, for this and your other comments.

I'm pretty confident that the files are being played back straight. If I play from PC, my soundcard will do 24/192, and when I play your highest res file the control panel utility shows that it is using this rate. My external DACs only go to 24/96 unfortunately; but it should still be possible to do a fair comparison between 16/44 and 24/96. I could try burning a DVDA as I have a player that supports it.

It's certainly possible that a high-end DAC costing a four-figure sum would reveal differences that cheaper equipment hides. That's an experiment I would like to do sometime. I don't think this question, of what level of equipment you need to hear the benefit of high-res, has been sufficiently addressed, there seem to be many different views.

Thanks also for making the files available.

Tim

 

We don't need many convincing demonstrations but I would also like to see at least one credible scientific study that shows 24/96 can be discerned from 16/44.1 by humans.

 

I have no doubt 24/96 would sound great, and I don't really care if it comes on physical media or downloads. The big question to me is weather or not it will come at all in any meaningful level. What is the event that makes the big providers like iTunes or Amazon start offering their entire libraries in any lossless format, much less Hi-Rez?

 

They will do it if they can make money at it. The question may be, how much extra do the hirez rights cost, if any, and what is the likely size of audience in terms of downloads.

 

Anyone can have DVD's created in pcm format of 2496 in short runs of 1,000 for $1250. This is not about the money, really, it is about a commitment to higher quality. Here in Atlanta we have www.amgcds.com who can do the work as well as Discmakers in NJ.

If you can have discs pressed and packages for $1.50 each then you just need to decide a proper marketing strategy with a price that will not hinder the sales.

It would also be wishful thinking on my part that those LP providers who are pressing short-runs of virgin vinyl in this new wave of LP interest, could also put out 2496 pcm DVDs of the same work...if they and the artist wanted.

This is not about new technology, it is a marketing issue and can a label or artist make it work for them? I would think that artists that are selling their work off their own websites should take advantage of this attempt at marketing differentiation.

The 2496 pcm DVD discs are playable (audio only of course) in any DVD player. It just takes desire and a commitment. I think $1500 is a pretty small investment for an artist if they are serious about a career in the music busniess.

 

Jim,

I agree with you, but don't forget what I think I mentioned earlier in the thread about licensing. Let's say it was decided to release a 2496 pcm DVD disc from the same mastering session as an LP. This would count as two separate releases with two sets of artwork, etc. Although it's possible to have such a DVD with no images (software actually creates a blank background be it black or whatever color that outputs to video while the disc is playing because the DVD spec does not allow for PCM audio without video output), of course the artist is going to want some sort of artwork onscreen, be it photos, lyrics, whatever. This requires separate negotiations for licensing, then lawyers get involved, costs go up, etc. It's certainly do-able, but it depends on a lot of factors. Before I bought a turntable (and even afterwards) I thought it extremely unfair to those who don't own turntables that these great remasterings Steve was announcing at the time (Yes, Red hot Chili Peppers, Joni Mitchell, Fleetwood Mac, Van Morrison, Rickie Lee Jones, etc.) were vinyl only but as he pointed out, record companies can easily reissue these LPs with the artwork on file, etc. (well in the case of Fleetwood Mac unfortunately it didn't turn out to be so easy ).

 

If you compare very elevated playback levels of quiet parts, there's often a difference. But you'd never listen to music at those levels for long. For evidence that the difference 'obvious' at normal levels, as some are claiming, I'd like to see a couple of studies, from independent labs, using rigorous methods*, reaching the same conclusions. That would be definitive if the result was 'positive'.

But if the results were 'negative' (no evidence for difference) I suspect it still wouldn't convince some audiophiles. Some might not even be convinced if they themselves were the ones being tested...they could claim there was something about blind testing that threw them off, like psychics say testing their powers inhibits them.




* this includes retesting listeners to ensure that their initial success/failure wasn't a statistical fluke

 

I hope you are right Jim, but I think it would be very hard to establish a new audiophile disc format in todays market. Like it or not, I believe the future will be owned by downloads in who knows what format.

 

Tim,

There have already been papers that proved this at the AES. Do a search here and you will see links to the papers.

 

----------------------------------------------
It is really not a new format, per se.

As for artists and "mechanical fees", if I was an artists perfoming my own compositions I would do 2496 for my releases.

Then the question becomes do I take my approvals of mechancal rights and press lps or DVDs? If youi decide to press $30 - $40 LPS...that is a very small market as well.

 

It seems to me the format you are suggesting is very similar to the DTS discs that were tried several years ago, and failed to catch on.

 

-----------------------------------
It is not like DTS which needs a decoder to play. There is notbhing exotic or hardware driven about 2496 pcm, unlike DVD-A and SACD.

2496 pcm is just an extension of the pcm standard and can be played in any DVD player as a stereo file. No other decoder is needed.

It is also possible to play 24/192 pcm files burned with DiscWelder Bronze that could play in any 24/192 DAC equiped dvd player, which is most of the current crop of DVD players, even cheap ones.

Even my cheapest dvd players have played all my 2496 discs by just hitting play. No menus are needed.

I am also researching whether the current Panasonic portable DVD players that have 2496 chipsets will also play these 2496 PCM DVD+Rs. They appear to be the only 2496 DAC equiped portable DVD players.

 

Hi Jim,

Most DVD players in my experience will decimate 96k audio to 48k UNLESS one enters the menus and sets them to allow 96k output from their digital ports.
They'll play the disc but it won't be without decimation unless the menu is set to allow this.

I know of know ordinary DVD video player that will allow 192k. Perhaps you mean DVD-A players? The DVD-V standard only goes to 24/96 PCM.

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

 

actually, it often depends on whether or not the disc is commercially produced with "copyright protection", or a home burned DVD-V. Several brands of DVD players (e.g., Denon, Marantz, Samsung...) will not output more than 48 kHz from commercial discs over S/PDIF.

 

Hi rbbert,

I hope that is with copy protected discs only and otherwise, those players are capable of performing to the DVD-V standard, which includes 24/96 PCM audio.

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

 

Not seen anything really convincing so far. Not interested in test tones, or artificially boosted signals, or evidence of very subtle differences that most people would not notice.

Tim

 

Nothing satisfies you guys. Jesus could come back and do the test himself and it would not be found acceptable. In fact, a thread would be started at Hydrogen Audio complaining that the test was invalid because the tester was just a carpenter with no scientific background.

There have been, in fact, good tests involving regular people listening to music but you can find it if you try.

Even when a recognized expert in digital audio like Bob Stuart decides 16/44 is inadequate no one listens because their minds are made up.

 

Tests can definitely go either way.

SACD - try one of the remastered hybrids from Stones or Dylan. Huge, obvious improvements.

Other HiRez is more difficult as 'like with like' is hard, because they're mostly differently mastered. I can't play Barry's set, I only have CD D/A at the moment. (plus a sony DVD/SACD)