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

An interestng point of view of this whole issue of testing here.

 

Hi Tim,

After all is said and done, isn't the only important thing, as far as you are concerned, whether or not you hear a difference you find meaningful?

If you do, no test, regardless of the results, will change this.
If you don't, no test, regardless of the results, will change this.

The difficult part might be creating a fair test of your own. I've often found that different formats are often presented for "comparison" but in fact represent more differences than simply the formats. Often the items to be compared are from different mastering sessions, sometimes done by different mastering engineers. In such cases, one is comparing mastering and not formats.

This is why I created the Format Comparison page for those interested in Soundkeeper Recordings. Folks who wish to purchase a given release can determine for themselves if they prefer the high res version or if would be as pleased by the less expensive CD version.

I'm sure there are other samples, from other companies, offered in various places on the web.

I'd find reading about your experiences and those of other members here, of much greater interest than most of the "tests" I've read about, where the organizers appear to be seeking to prove a point rather than to discover something. I'm convinced that if one seeks diligently enough, they can find a "study" somewhere that will support any perspective they'd like.

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

 

^Excellent reply Barry. Thanks.

 

In the context of a personal purchase, maybe. In the context of the industry, no. I think questions like "How many people can hear audible benefits from high-res" or "what level of equipment does an average listener need to hear benefits (if indeed the average listener can hear them at all)" are pretty interesting and would like to know the answers.

Very useful, yes, and I've downloaded and done some listening tests. Thanks.

Tim

 

You mean vs other masterings, or redbook layer vs SACD layer? They certainly sound different from other masterings, not always better IMO (case by case thing). As for SACD layer vs redbook layer, I don't agree that there are "huge, obvious improvements" in these cases - and I have most of them -but we should bear in mind that these are old recordings; I don't like comparing layers in general as a means of testing the benefits of high-res because there are too many unknown variables - sometimes they are mastered differently (beyond the difference in resolution) and of course a particular player may perform better on one versus the other.

Tim

 

Did you find the cd or hirez version better?

 

I'd like to do some more tests before answering that.

I did some quick informal tests with my 12-yr old son who has excellent hearing and is a beginning pianist.

I played them in the order 2 - 1 - 3 where 1 = 16/44, 2 = 24/96, 3 = 24/192. This was soundcard to AVI ADM 9.1 speakers, similar to active nearfield monitors and very detailed. Then I played a few random ones and asked which he thought it was.

I was interested to find that he expressed a preference that matched the order I played them, ie 2, 1, 3, not 1, 2, 3 as you might expect. He said he thought the better sources had less "white noise" - I think he means non-musical artefacts like hiss - though they all sound very good. However several times he identified 1 as being 3. He thought that overall the differences were subtle rather than marked. I didn't test long enough to get statistically significant results but would say his results were consistent with the theory that they all sound the same to him and that the differences were imagined, since he could not reliably identify which was which, though equally it is possible that he hears real differences.

Tim

 

That's why I mentioned those two series in particular. SACD vs. Redbook. They are the same mastering, transfer, transcoded down to CD. Don't try this on Mercury Living Presence SACDs (not the same masterings) or Verve SACDs (again, different masterings and even studios/engineers on the different layers). I believe the Living Stereo SACDs are the same masterings on each layer, transcoded.

Of course, it's possible to 'sweeten' the CD mastering in many ways, but that's not what we were discussing here and now.

It's much more difficult to do this outside the studio with High Resolution PCM. It's good that many of those selling offer free comparison downloads. My friends with suitable equipment tell me that their results are mixed, just like everyone else quoted here. Sometimes a big difference, sometimes meh.

(perspective: just like analog! Some recordings come alive on system A vs. system B, others don't. Heard this many times in my audio journey.)

 

Hi Tim,

I hope you are considering the fact that the playback system will influence what you do and don't hear.

A computer soundcard is not exactly the most revealing of DACs and small bookshelf speakers are not the most revealing of speakers. I do not mean this as a criticism but merely as an observation. The results of a listening test are as much about the listening setup as they are about that which is being listened to.

Have fun!

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

P.S. I would add that many folks mistakenly believe the advantage (theoretical or otherwise) to high resolution or high sampling rates is the extended treble, when in fact the advantage is in more accurate time response. (Just as, in my view, the disadvantage to 44.1k is the abysmal time behavior, down to frequencies well below 20 kHz. This, perhaps partially a function of the steep low pass filtering involved both during recording and during playback.)

One doesn't have to have hearing that extends to the range of dogs and bats. It is the timing accuracy of information much lower in the frequency spectrum (again, well below 20 kHz) that will be better captured by a wide band system. In fact, one of the great benefits I hear in higher sample rates, particularly 192k is in the bass.

 

Of course I consider that; it's one of the things I've asked about several times. What level and cost of playback equipment do you need to hear these differences?

The speakers are on high-quality stands and actually very revealing of most aspects of the source, other than extended bass. I could try on a Naim system though.

The soundcard is decent and aimed at the (budget) pro market; I do have several external DACs but the soundcard is the only one capable of 192 khz, and the external DACs I have do not sound much different as far as I can tell.

In general I'm reluctant to spend a lot of money on a DAC because I've not yet heard big benefits from doing so, in the kit I've heard, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - preferably with a demo rather than spending a lot of money first!

Tim

 

By the way, thanks for the comments on what to listen for. I'd like to see more of that here. Irrespective of the benefits of high-res, I am sure most of us can learn to be better listeners.

Tim

 

If audiophiles decide that 5.6448MHz DSD sounds better than 24/96 then why not?

 

Although I'm sure that we both agree on the quality and superiority of 5.6448MHz DSD, how do we convince other people and more importantly just how many DSD masters, (other than Sonys), are there out there for people to buy if they so wished? I'd love it if DSD became the defacto hi res format I just don't think it's going to happen.

 

http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/

This is somebody who is strongly pro DSD SACD and has taken on some people in the music business in discussions about the format.

 

Dubmart, the message from the Super Audio Center is clear -- DSD files will happen

 

In that case we have a new golden age of listening to look forward to.

 

Hi Tim,

I'd say the system needs to be wideband and capable of reproducing an honest (not artificial) sense of the spatial and harmonic information contained in the recording. Speakers must be placed where their performance is not hindered by the room.

The DAC is the second part of the key here and it is quite understandable that you are reluctant to purchase an expensive unit without having heard the benefits. The "catch-22" might be that less units won't reveal what there is to be heard.

By "lesser", I'm not necessarily referring to price. I've heard a number of pro units whose performance suffers as the sample rate goes up. At the same time, I seriously doubt any computer soundcard, regardless of the numbers they put on the spec sheet, is going to provide a clear picture of what the 2x rates (88 and 96k) can do; I don't think they have much of a shot at 4x rates (176 and 192k).

Perhaps getting something on loan or hearing it in another system might do the trick.

Then again, if the question is to find out whether 2x or 4x rates are worth it with the current setup, perhaps this has already been answered. Whether they will be worth it for you on another setup, only you can determine.

For me, I knew I liked 96k as soon as I started making recordings with Metric Halo's 2882 and ULN-2 interface. I found these to easily reveal better focus and more complex instrumental harmonics, with less sense of "edge" (or what has been called "digititis").

But it was hearing the ULN-8 recordings at 192k that knocked my socks off. I've said before, I found these to be a significantly greater step up from 96k than that was from 44.1. It wasn't "better digital" anymore. It didn't sound digital (or analog) at all. I get back the sound of my mic feeds. And those reservations I've always held (even about 96k) where the best analog does certain things better, have at last evaporated. I would not have predicted this only a few short years ago, before the 192k capability was "turned on" in the ULN-8 I was testing.

What I hear is a never before heard sense of focus on the recorded event and the space in which it occurred, from the lowest bass to the highest treble, at all dynamic levels. In comparison, switching over to the best 44.1 in my experience, it seems the air has been sucked from the room, tonalities get coarsened, bass loosened and it is difficult to determine where room boundaries are and from what materials they are made. Switch back to the 192 and everything is clear again.

All just my perspective of course.

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

P.S. The better the recording used for comparison, the more obvious the differences will be. I like to use a number of Keith Johnson's recordings on the Reference Recordings label. For pop music, I like to use Mark Knopfler's solo albums and James Taylor's solo albums.

 

Any suggestions at the lower price end ?

Tim

 

Hi Tim,

This is a tough one.
Metric Halo's offerings start (ULN-2) at around $1700 and require a Mac to set up. (They will replace a preamp so that is a consideration but still not inexpensive.)

There is the Apogee Duet at ~$500 but it too may be Mac only.
Neither of the above do 192k either but I think this will be true of any of the converters I would consider at the lower price end. (I'd rather have good 44.1k and decent 96k than cheesy 192k designed for a market rather than for a listener.)

There are also units from MOTU but I haven't heard these in a few years.
Note the converters I mention tend to be designed for recordists. Perhaps a coincidence they also sound better to my ears. Perhaps not.

To my ears, most of the others at affordable prices don't really offer any significant performance improvements over the least expensive units. Hopefully things will improve going forward, with better converters at the lower end.

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

 

Musical Fidelity has just released the M1 DAC in their new line. I think it is $400-500. May be worth checking out. Got a terrific review in one of the British audio mags.

 

You may find some useful info at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/. They talk about high-end gear as well but also some lower-priced gear that's worth considering.

 

Hi Lee,

The problem I've found with many (most?) DAC reviews is the writer is talking about what they like (and don't like). Many equivocate what they like with "neutrality". I've seen reviews of DACs I consider ear-rippers where the writer suggests development of this technology has reached the pinnacle of achievement.

There are a lot of very good DACs nowadays but to my ears, most tend to impart a "character" on the sound. They tend to either "enhance" detail (read "add spurious harmonics") not present in the source material or they tend to sound "silky smooth", when all input isn't silky or smooth.

Nothing wrong with either of these of course, provided that is what the listener is seeking. I prefer to get the character that is present in the input signal and not have it superimposed by anything in the signal path. To me, this is what separates the great from the merely "very good".

Just my perspective, of course.

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

 

Barry,

I agree with what you say above. I think with DACs it is indeed a matter of finding one that does the least harm.

Lee

 

Hi Lee,

I have heard at least one (the ULN/LIO-8) that, so far in my experience, I have not been able to ascribe a character to. (Incidentally, it comes with software that allows one to add what they call "character", whether tube, FET or several other variations. I tend to leave this set to "none". But it is fun to play with.)

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

 

Well I already have some budget DACs that are well thought-of for their price:

Beresford Caiman
Behringer SRC 2496
M-Audio Transit

as well as whatever is built into a Denon 3803 receiver.

In terms of price though, all are well short of the sums Barry is talking about.

At this stage I'm not so concerned with getting the best; just something that would make 24/96 an audible improvement over 16/44 would be an excellent start.

Tim