qobuz 24 bit music

No tv here

 

Late to the party and haven't caught up yet but jumping in anyway before finishing catching up.

In PCM bit depth is defined as the resolution and sample rate defines the frequency response.
By definition, 24 bit is higher resolution than 16 bit.

It also doesn't surprise me if people do not experience hearing a difference in a sample rate when both samples are above the threshold human hearing. So his claim makes sense to me.

And a slightly off topic note of clarification, MQA is only 17-18 bits of resolution. My theory is the extra couple of bits are what gives it the slight edge of sounding better than CD's 16 bits, mastering being the same.

 

Very soon I will be taking a 24 bit 192khz file and transfer the frequency down but keep 24 bit.
Then next just change the 24 bit 192khz to 16 bit.
No matter what going down to cd sound the sound sounds way more compressed.

 

Yeah, but how do you know the "more compressed" sound is due to the 16/44.1 format itself, and not an artifact of the downsampling process for the 24/192 file. Does all downsampling result in the same thing? Roon will downsample high-res files, but is that the same as what a studio uses to downsample – say 32-bit masters – to 16- and 24-bit releases. I'll bet not.

 

I dont think you really understand how digital audio works. your description is logically how many people think it works but not how it works in the real world. Lower bits used means a higher noise floor which eventually will swamp the audio.

The truth about bit-depth and digital audio resolution

might explain it better.

 

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

 

The sample rate does define that maximum frequency response that a digital sample can contain (see below). The CD sample rate of 44.1 is sufficient to capture sounds that are in the range of human hearing, up to 20-kHz.

Sampling rates both being higher than human hearing have nothing to do with hearing a difference. You have to have a minimum of twice the sampling rate (bit rate) for the highest frequency that you want to capture and digitally reproduce.

But sampling rates have to do with digital technology involved in sampling, the frequencies used have nothing to do with human hearing.

But, If you feel you can hear a difference in 44.1 and higher sampling rates, it is because more detail is being captured and reproduced, so you should HEAR a difference, otherwise there would be little point in high resolution audio.

On the subject of high resolution audio, and subjective audible differences, I am not commenting one way or the other on what sounds the same or what sound better.

As explained at: PreSonus

"The most important practical effect of bit depth is that it determines the dynamic range of the signal. In theory, 24-bit digital audio has a maximum dynamic range of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16-bit but today’s digital audio converter technology cannot come close to that upper limit."

"If the sampling frequency is too low, aliasing distortion can result. Aliasing is a major concern when using analog-to-digital conversion. Improper sampling of the analog signal will cause high-frequency components of the signal to be aliased with genuine lower-frequency components. If this happens, the digital-to-analog conversion will create an incorrectly reconstructed signal.

In addition, higher sampling rates enable you to record very high frequencies above the normal range of human hearing. While inaudible by themselves, these ultrasonic frequencies can interact, creating intermodulation distortion (such as beating) that results in audible frequency content that many engineers believe to impart subtle psychoacoustic effects.

For a variety of reasons, then, many recording engineers rely on sampling rates of 88.2, 96, and even 192 kHz to ensure extremely accurate recordings that capture every detail."

 

Well now I have learned that the top recording studios are all crazy.
They go to a lot of trouble to use 32 bit floating point.
And NOW it turns out there was no need to bother.
16/44.1 was already PERFECT sound forever.
Who knew?
Oh well.
I listened to Klemperer's Beethoven V last night on vinyl (Angel Stereo).
I damn near s**t my pants at how it sounded on my Harbeths.
The resolution and musical majesty were shocking.
Never heard anything like it from ANY digital recording.
Yet.
I guess it is time to get Qobuz and see if I can find classical that is true 24/192 and compare tones.
Since the old system is really kicking out the jams---I'd LOVE to hear digital that could move me like vinyl does.
After all this time, I'm still waiting.
What a great hobby we have here, fellas.

 

Oh. I but DO believe the noise floor in digital will swamp "delicate low level" audio.
But NOT just because of the noise itself.
The micro tonal difference BETWEEN tones just seems too subtle for "paint by numbers" digital at low bit rates.
Probably too many details getting "swamped."
NOBODY has yet convinced me that we truly understand the profound difference between "natural" sound (analog) and "paint by number reproductions of natural sound" (digital).
So I'm not surprised what science thinks is still subject to endless debate.
Yet, like great pornography, I KNOW amazing sound when I hear it.
It's also funny how others explain sex.
I find it charming.
But "scientific"?
Not so much.
I'm just having fun guessing at what's going on.
Pretty much like everybody else...
Long live high resolution audio!
No matter WHAT the form.
My two cents.

 

because i have the cd of the same master.all my hi-res albums have a more opened sound then the cds i have by them.the cymbals are more airy and clean sounding,the bass is deeper and tighter and the mids come out of the speakers more.

 

It is standard practice to use a band limited signal before the ADC. Or said another way, run the data through an anti-alias filter prior to digitizing.
I don't disagree that it helps to use a sampling rate above the hearing threshold to allow room for noise and alias distortion to be out of range but music is band limited before being digitized in order to avoid the problem that article is pointing out.

 

Actually, to most audio engineers it has been pretty well-understood for at least the past 40 years. AT&T and the BBC were successfully experimenting with digital audio reproduction as far back as the 1960s.

16-bit digital audio allows the waveform to be reproduced with over 65,000 different volume levels. Try adjusting your amplifier's volume control in the smallest possible increments from zero to maximum in which you can hear a difference in loudness, and count how many of those steps you ended up with. I doubt it will be anywhere close to 65,000 of them.

 

OK. I thought you were taking 24/192 files and converting them to 16/44.1.

So another question, do you really know that your CDs and the 24/192 versions are from the same masters? Mastering can easily make more of a difference to SQ than differences in format.

 

only my lady gaga joanne at the moment and the chicago transit authority one at the moment.
my new ghostbusters film score that just came out also acually.the hi res is way more detailed and open sounding

 

Mastering is EVERYTHING.

I put together a system with both a new and an vintage quality turntable, quality MM cartridges and both SS and tube phono preamplifier's.

On the digital side, I use an Oppo 203 strictly as a transport into the system DAC.

The bottom line is that neither one sounds inherently better than the other. They both have different characteristics, but it all comes down to the original recording quality, engineering and the final mastering and pressing process.

My impression, comparing them as a curiosity to myself about one over the other with regard to sound quality is that the majority of both media are just average in sound quality.

Only less than 1/3 of either of them really offer truly superior sound. When they do, both can be breathtaking.

This is going through a all tube chain (after the system DAC of course), a tube preamp and quality tube class A/B and single ended power amps, through custom modified fully horn loaded speakers.

Again, not taking a part in the high resolution debate, but when you have quality sources, you can achieve practically perfect sound from either a CD or a record.

While I have nothing against high resolution in concept, it is a fallacy that having more detail results in better sound quality, beyond a point.

I have gone from playing audiophile mastered records and CD's that sound amazing to plain old compressed AAC lower bitrate streaming subscription Pandora and through a quality system, it can sound equally amazing.

Not necessarily every song, just like records or CD's, but I would say that a greater percentage of streaming audio, sounds better that the same percentage of CD's and records. What they do with the original sources, I have know idea?

If I thought that vinyl sounded better, than I would just buy and play vinyl, likewise for CD's. If I didn't think that compressed streaming music could sound equally excellent, I simply wouldn't listen to it either.

"24-Bit is designed to be used in the studio, it is a professional tool. It is there to capture all of the different dynamic information, just exactly as you have said.

However, at home, dynamic range is simple that, dynamic range.

A CD can handle all of the dynamic range that is needed for accurate reproduction for the dynamics of music.

The bit-depth specification in digital, references only the available final dynamic range of a recording.

Unless someone is going to tell me that a greater dynamic range than 96-dB. is necessary in the final mastering, then 16-bit will be able to handle that range quite satisfactorily."

 

Science KNOWS a lot of things.
Unfortunately, many of them are WRONG.
I remember telling my 5th grade teacher that the coast of Africa mirrored the coast of
South America EXACTLY and I wondered if the two had been JOINED at one time.
"Oh no, little boy," she said.
"Science says the continents have ALWAYS been separated and it is only a coincidence that they seem to look alike."
"It is only your IMAGINATION that tells you they used to be one piece."
I am totally reassured now that you have explained your "Science" to me.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
But I think NOT.
Bwah!

 

I don't HATE low bit depth audio.
It just sounds kind of plastic-y, that's all.
Plastic-y and over simplified.
My two cents.

 

but that has literally nothing to do with what bit depth does. you can phase invert a lower bit depth and it will null with a higher bit depth and leave just a bit of noise. its hard to hear a good mp3 from a full rez file, its impossible to hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit.

 

Yes the only difference between 24 and 16 bits is the noise floor, nothing else.

 

Everybody has a great opportunity to put their theories to the test. Tidal and Qobuz have both added the King Crimson catalog. They appear to be identical except Qobuz is 24/44.1 where Tidal is 16/44.1. Whatever advantage was obtained by adding the extra 8 bits should shine through.

 

I’m listening to the stranger things 3 film score in hires and it sounds amazing!
Qobuz rules!

 

Actually you were right the first time:

Pangaea - Wikipedia



I'm sorry your teacher scarred you for life to mistrust science. Science is not a book of rules. It is constantly changing as new evidence is found. Yes, some things that scientists used to believe have been proven wrong over time. But that's actually a good thing. It means the scientific method is working exactly as designed!

 

Except it's not.

 

Then you dont understand how digital audio works. there is no stair step from the samples, there is only noise floor from more bits when using pcm audio. if you take an 8 bit sample and a 24 bit sample, the difference is only noise. the audio all nulls to zero. This isnt science we dont understand. Maybe we dont know exactly where the continents were millions of years ago, but we do understand PCM audio which humans invented 60 years ago.

 

You mustn´t trust anybody who say the only difference is quantization noise, You can pretty easily test this Yourself.