Is 16/44.1 still a decent quality in 2020?

Get it! It really doesn't disappoint. I started the thread here about this cart under a different nickname (long story, I said something I shouldn't have said on another thread) and for the price it's a steal,a great performing cart for the money that will get the most (for the price) out of your record's grooves, and if properly set up it tracks well and you won't notice IGD.

 

^ agree with MusicNBeer. I

Sound foolish? Nah. I’d say you thinking more data makes the ‘midrange timbres’ and timing better shows a wild misunderstanding of math and how digital audio works. But enjoy whatever you like.

 

Absolutely, it's all you need. If the recording is made with care, and mastered with care, that is 98% in offering a superb final product. If you have any doubts, all you have to do is listen to some standard CDs from Reference Recordings, or any of the Audiophile labels, and you will see first hand just how good 16/44.1 can be, and it can be amazing!

 

I think I will. I have a pioneer PL-560 and the 440mla sounded great with it. I wore the stylus out so I’m ready to replace it with the vm540ml.

 

When you say you should use 24/96 you should mean recording music at 24/96 and editing/mixing/mastering in that resolution. That's its only benefit. There is no difference in playback listening to finished music in CD rez vs 24/96.

But one has to have analog to digital converter (ADC) hardware that can be proven that it captures at this high resolution over just upsampling from a lower resolution. I still don't know how one proves the mechanics of that process so I just don't seek it out and I no longer buy 24/96 versions of old remastered music for the same reasons. I just can't hear a difference between 16/44 vs 24/96.

And no one knows what a piece of digitally recorded music or old tape sounded like in the studio during the upsample or the raw recording before mixing and mastering. It might have sounded much better without any editing.

 

Done right, 16/44 can be very good.

 

Isn't it down to the mastering? If the CD, Vinyl, or the 24bit 96kHz file is mastered for audiophile playback they should all sound very good. I doubt many, if any, could really tell the difference.

If the CD is mastered differently to cater for more "bog standard" playback environments, this might explain the perceived problem.

 

The only hi-rez I listen to is the one some BD titles feature. Other than that, and in spite of owning a player that handles every hi-rez known to man, I only listen to 16/44.

 

I'm sure you'll be pleased with it. I've used Denon's DL 160 (that was discontinued some years ago) and DL 110 in the past and from the DL 110 I moved to the Audio Technica VM540ML and it literally trounces both DL 160 and DL 110. This may be because of the cart itself or because it uses a microline stylus instead of an elliptical one, but the AT sounds much much better (better imaging, no sibilance, no IGD, better timbre) than both Denon's carts.
One piece of advice, add around 70 $ to your budget and get LAST Stylast and either Vinyl Passion's stylus cleaner or Zerodust to keep your stylus clean and protected. In my opinion LAST Stylast is not snake oil, I've had my VM540ML for two years, have used Stylast since day one with each side's playing and the same with Vinyl Passion to removed dirt after each side playing, and with these my stylus is in mint condition both sound wise and visually as a friend of mine brought a microscope home to have a look at the stylus and it looked brand new.

 

I can hear the difference between 192/24 and 44.1/16. Let me please explain: I bought the 2015 Chris Bellman 192/24 remasters from HDTracks (I also own their LP counterparts), I've also got all the new/Disney Star Wars soundtracks that are tracked and mixed down at 192/24 (only the Skywalker trilogy, Rogue One and Solo are 96/24) and both the Van Halen remasters and Star Wars soundtracks sound outstanding in their own way (I'm comparing 40/35 years old full analogue recordings with new recordings done at native 192/24 resolution), but that's my hearing saying so. Using Weiss Saracon I've converted tracks from the Van Halen remasters and the new Star Wars soundtracks to 44.1/16 using TPDF dither. I can hear a difference between the 192/24 files and the ones converted to red book resolution. Weiss Saracon is a pro converter that's not cheap and does a great job at converting between different PCM resolutions and DSD to PCM. The 44.1/16 converted files don't lack clarity, that is preserved, but when I sit down on the sweet spot soundstage is different,narrower in 44.1/16 and so is low level detail, and the overall sound for the lack of a better word with my limited knowledge of the English languaje is "congested". And as usual drums sound very red book, that is with cymbals sounding unnatural and lacking the timing and ease the 192/24 files have.

 

You still can't prove that the sound differences is either from the high resolution playback on your system or what editing was done in the studio unless you were in the studio listening to the differences and the editing applied in the playback. It comes down to you having two different digital files of the same song, one 16/44 the other 24/96. What was done to both no one but the studio engineers know.

Now if you took a finished 24/96 digital audio file from a commercial music label that sounds perfectly spectacular, brought it into any decent quality DAW software and down sampled it to 16/44 and A/B'ed the two and heard a difference whether bad or good, then I'ld say you've convinced me that it's resolution related. But I've done such a test from high rez files downloaded from Qobuz and heard no difference.

 

Definitely decent, but anyone who insists that 24/96 or DSD are indistinguishable from 16/44.1 either has poor hearing or a system that isn’t resolving enough.

 

Pretty bold statement.

 

I can easily hear the difference on some (not all) titles available on Qobuz in 24/96 and 16/44.1

 

What’s so bold about it? It applied to me in the past, but as my set up got better (even though I’m older and my hearing probably worsened) the difference became noticeable. Not saying it’s night and day, or even worth the extra cost, but it’s there.

 

Don't think anyone has ever proved that in a blind listening test.Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Hadn't @Kiko1974 just explained that he/she had done exactly that??
Or did I read that incorrectly?

 

there's this study:

AES E-Library » A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

I am aware of this study......read it....its pretty much 50/50...trust me AES is not your friend here.

 

You need to relax and enjoy your music my friend....I've been down that road....cd quality is beyond the threshold of human audibility.I have seen people try to demonstrate their superior hearing to no avail.Your system is good enough bud.

 

it actually mirrors my experience, the difference is not huge but becomes easier to notice once you know what to look for.
the difference is statistically significant, which is to say not 50/50.

 

you asked me to share a study which shows a difference, and when i do you say "relax and enjoy your music"?
ok

 

I did the 192/24 to 44.1/16 MYSELF on my Toshiba laptop using Weiss Saracon,not one cheap or free sample rate/bit depth conversion program. And believe me, I know how to use Weiss Saracon right as I've been using it for over 7 years.
Weiss Saracon is not an automatic sample rate/bit depth converter, it has several parameters that has to be set up right to get the best possible conversion. Just to give an example at how good Saracon is, Sony's Super Audio CD center in Boulder, CO,uses Weiss Saracon when they get a PCM master for SACD authoring and suggest others that do the same work to use it.
When converting 192/24 files to 44.1/16 I definitely DO hear a difference between the 192/24 file and the 44.1/16 conversion. Compared to the original 192/24 files, 44.1/16 ones get a narrower sounstage, some low level detail is lost, that is to be expected as 24 bits can define a sound wave better than a 16 bits one, specially with low level signals. 24 bit quantization is not only about a higher dinamic range.
Just my 0.02 $.

 

If you are gonna use the AES as an example....read more of their stuff...99% of the articles tell us that cd quality is beyond what humans can hear.

 

You read my post right. I didn't compared 192/24 files to their CD conterparts, I took the 192/24 and did the conversion to 44.1/16 with Weiss Saracon myself on my laptop.