advertisement


Vinyl is not obsolete, Will CD become obsolete ?

DSCOTT said:
With respect to Hi-Rez, I don't know if it is any better than CD quality, but I have no problem with people selling it and people buying it - it's their choice.
Click to expand...

Agreed, provided they are not told it is audibly superior. However, they usually are.

Tim
 
Tim,

Have you thought of starting a back to 8bit campaign or 'you can't tell mp3 from the real thing' drive?

I'm sure there are academic papers which will support the arguments. But a bigger file is a bigger file and more is better....
 
onlyconnect said:
Agreed, provided they are not told it is audibly superior. However, they usually are.
Click to expand...

Because it usually sounds better.
Maybe this could be related to the mastering process.
Maybe HiRes could be a way of digital audio people get better re-mastering, like what seems to be happening with vinyl.

Michael
 
abbydog said:
But a bigger file is a bigger file and more is better....
Click to expand...

More bit depth is, in theory, better but there are plausible arguments that higher sampling rates than 44/48kHz could be worse for fidelity. See earlier in the thread for the discussion on this point. (No-one is saying that's intuitive, I don't think it is anyway, but don't dismiss it without seeing more.)
Darren
 
Larger bit depth gives you more dynamic range, which as has been previously stated is useful for recording / mastering and filtering .
A good recording at 44.1 will sound superb, high sampling rate bit depth obviously does not guarantee a good recording.
Keith.
 
Mikas said:
Because it usually sounds better.
Maybe this could be related to the mastering process.
Maybe HiRes could be a way of digital audio people get better re-mastering, like what seems to be happening with vinyl.

Michael
Click to expand...

It's all in the mastering (and sources), yes.

The ADC and DAC is the easy bit.

Tim
 
darrenyeats said:
More bit depth is, in theory, better but there are plausible arguments that higher sampling rates than 44/48kHz could be worse for fidelity. See earlier in the thread for the discussion on this point. (No-one is saying that's intuitive, I don't think it is anyway, but don't dismiss it without seeing more.)
Darren
Click to expand...

Take it from someone who actually listens to 24bit and 16bit. 24bit is way better in particular new albums not 60’S albums. The sound stage is bigger in 24 while there is more back ground detail. That’s what listening in the real world brings. Though for me Analog still sounds best in a good turntable set up maybe because our hearing is in analog not digital.
 
I.D.C. said:
...maybe because our hearing is in analog not digital.
Click to expand...
Considering the way our brain cells work (synapses), that can also be discussed...
:)
Anyway, sound is always analogue whatever sources we use. ...and digital sources are just more reliable and accurate than analogue ones.

Michael
 
I.D.C. said:
Take it from someone who actually listens to 24bit and 16bit. 24bit is way better in particular new albums not 60’S albums. The sound stage is bigger in 24 while there is more back ground detail. That’s what listening in the real world brings. Though for me Analog still sounds best in a good turntable set up maybe because our hearing is in analog not digital.
Click to expand...

Presumably that means you can hear the difference between a 24-bit file, and the same file downsampled to 16-bit? Would love to have a sample of such a file. With all the ones I've tried, the difference is inaudible, or very hard to hear.

Tim
 
onlyconnect said:
Presumably that means you can hear the difference between a 24-bit file, and the same file downsampled to 16-bit? Would love to have a sample of such a file. With all the ones I've tried, the difference is inaudible, or very hard to hear.

Tim
Click to expand...

I've got a brace of King Crimson releases, and also the Donald Fagen box set, all of which include hi-res alongside regular CD versions. On the assumption that both have come from the same master source, and I see no reason they shouldn't be, the differences are clear on my modest system.

Which ones have you tried?
 
I.D.C. said:
Take it from someone who actually listens to 24bit and 16bit.<snip> That’s what listening in the real world brings.
Click to expand...
When I said in theory, I should clarify that I do have access to 16 and 24 bit recordings, and to lower and higher sampling rate recordings; and I have formed my own subjective impressions in a manner similar to you. It's just that I was talking about theory.
Darren
 
formbypc said:
On the assumption that both have come from the same master source, and I see no reason they shouldn't be, the differences are clear on my modest system.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a good assumption to make.

It's pretty easy to reduce the bit depth of the 24 bit recording to 16 bit for yourself using Sox or even Audacity and compare like mastering with like. If you can pick them out blind then I'd be very interested in that result.
Darren
 
onlyconnect said:
Presumably that means you can hear the difference between a 24-bit file, and the same file downsampled to 16-bit? Would love to have a sample of such a file. With all the ones I've tried, the difference is inaudible, or very hard to hear.

Tim
Click to expand...

Try and get Wilco’s latest album ‘The Whole Love’ It’s in 16bit & 24bit
 
I.D.C. said:
Take it from someone who actually listens to 24bit and 16bit. 24bit is way better in particular new albums not 60’S albums. The sound stage is bigger in 24 while there is more back ground detail
Click to expand...

Then try my challenge and see if you can hear the difference after I've done the conversion.
 
I.D.C. said:
Try and get Wilco’s latest album ‘The Whole Love’ It’s in 16bit & 24bit
Click to expand...

But it's really not safe to assume the 16 bit and 24 bit versions were mastered the same way. The way to do it is to reduce the bit depth of the 24 bit version for yourself and then compare. You can do this for free with Sox or Audacity.
Darren
 
darrenyeats said:
I don't think that's a good assumption to make.
..
Click to expand...

why not? In each and every case, the CD and hi-res versions are both in the same retail package, so it's reasonable to assume they were done as one project. Since they're in this form, they're not trying to sell the hi-res in preference to the CD, so what incentive would they have to master one from a different source to the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top