06-Apr-2019, 15:38
(This post was last modified: 06-Apr-2019, 16:03 by Confused.
Edit Reason: Low resolution spelling
)
First to say that I do not have any strong views with respect to the benefits of "high res" formats or similar. When I am buying something new, I will happily get the 24/96 version, why not? But if there is a significant price difference somewhere, I would probably opt for the cheaper version. As an example, the last "high res" album I bought was one price for the 24/96 version and a higher price for 24/192, I was more than happy to settle for the 24/96 version.
I am interested in much of what has been written by David A. To add to this, I was reading some information recently about digital to analogue conversion and issues with digital filters and similar. This is highly complex and mathematical stuff that does not need to be repeated here, but in conclusion, there are some technical reasons why 24 bit files can solve some minor issues that can negatively the impact digital to analogue conversion of 16/44.1 files. So maybe there is a small benefit from hi res files, as to how audible this might be is open to debate. I would take the view that as there are no obvious negatives, you might as well go for 24 bit if there is no significant financial penalty. If 24 bit is significantly more expensive, I'd rather give the difference to charity or buy a beer.
I must admit that I have had some fun thinking about the intermodulation effects that David mentions. Consider an instrument in a musical performace that produces frequencies above 20kHz which in turn create intermodulation effects within the audible range. These audible intermodulation effects could be captured by a microphone and reproduced with a 16/44.1 digital file. If you used a 24/192 file and a system that could reproduce the content above 20kHz, then this could recreate the intermodulation effect in your room, but at the same time would still reproduce the originally recorded intermodulation effect so you would get the intermodulation effect twice. Maybe 16/44.1 would actually be more accurate in this regard?
Fun to think about, but my personal experience tells me that the difference between 320kbs, 16/44.1, 24/192 or whatever is very small. Or to put it another way, very nicely recorded material can sound spectacular when reproduced from a 320kbs file. In the same way, I have some 24bit recordings that sound awful, and would still sound awful compressed to 320kbs.
That said, I think if you go below 320kbs things do get audibly worse. I very often listen to music via YouTube. This is for "music discovery", plus I follow a music thread on another forum where people post YouTube links to suggested music. I listen to these via my iPad and Airplay. Sometimes these YouTube tracks can sound quite superb, very often I am surprised at just how good they sound, considering they are 128kbs or something at best. However, I have tried YouTube versions of tracks that I am familiar with at 16/44.1, and yes, the YouTube versions are obviously inferior, loss of detail, a bit of extra bass bloat, and so on. Get to 320kbs, the margins get very small I think. But again, the genuinely big differences are in the mastering, not the file format.
For those interested in comparing, I think you need files from absolutely identical masters, but in different file formats. Listening to random tracks in different file formats will tell you nothing because the difference in the mastering is so large. One thing to try is to take a favorite 24/192 track and make some copies converted to 16/44.1 and 320kbs. Software such as dBpoweramp can do this quite easily. What you have then is different audio files formats, but demonstrably from the same source. Maybe some folk will be able to tell the files apart, but I would doubt anyone who states the differences are huge or obvious. Don't take my word for it though, or anyone else's, it is best to try yourself.
On a similar topic, I quite enjoyed this from Archimago:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24...art-i.html
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24...rt-ii.html
I am interested in much of what has been written by David A. To add to this, I was reading some information recently about digital to analogue conversion and issues with digital filters and similar. This is highly complex and mathematical stuff that does not need to be repeated here, but in conclusion, there are some technical reasons why 24 bit files can solve some minor issues that can negatively the impact digital to analogue conversion of 16/44.1 files. So maybe there is a small benefit from hi res files, as to how audible this might be is open to debate. I would take the view that as there are no obvious negatives, you might as well go for 24 bit if there is no significant financial penalty. If 24 bit is significantly more expensive, I'd rather give the difference to charity or buy a beer.
I must admit that I have had some fun thinking about the intermodulation effects that David mentions. Consider an instrument in a musical performace that produces frequencies above 20kHz which in turn create intermodulation effects within the audible range. These audible intermodulation effects could be captured by a microphone and reproduced with a 16/44.1 digital file. If you used a 24/192 file and a system that could reproduce the content above 20kHz, then this could recreate the intermodulation effect in your room, but at the same time would still reproduce the originally recorded intermodulation effect so you would get the intermodulation effect twice. Maybe 16/44.1 would actually be more accurate in this regard?
Fun to think about, but my personal experience tells me that the difference between 320kbs, 16/44.1, 24/192 or whatever is very small. Or to put it another way, very nicely recorded material can sound spectacular when reproduced from a 320kbs file. In the same way, I have some 24bit recordings that sound awful, and would still sound awful compressed to 320kbs.
That said, I think if you go below 320kbs things do get audibly worse. I very often listen to music via YouTube. This is for "music discovery", plus I follow a music thread on another forum where people post YouTube links to suggested music. I listen to these via my iPad and Airplay. Sometimes these YouTube tracks can sound quite superb, very often I am surprised at just how good they sound, considering they are 128kbs or something at best. However, I have tried YouTube versions of tracks that I am familiar with at 16/44.1, and yes, the YouTube versions are obviously inferior, loss of detail, a bit of extra bass bloat, and so on. Get to 320kbs, the margins get very small I think. But again, the genuinely big differences are in the mastering, not the file format.
For those interested in comparing, I think you need files from absolutely identical masters, but in different file formats. Listening to random tracks in different file formats will tell you nothing because the difference in the mastering is so large. One thing to try is to take a favorite 24/192 track and make some copies converted to 16/44.1 and 320kbs. Software such as dBpoweramp can do this quite easily. What you have then is different audio files formats, but demonstrably from the same source. Maybe some folk will be able to tell the files apart, but I would doubt anyone who states the differences are huge or obvious. Don't take my word for it though, or anyone else's, it is best to try yourself.
On a similar topic, I quite enjoyed this from Archimago:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24...art-i.html
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24...rt-ii.html
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
