Topic: The difference between 16/44 and 24/96 can not be heard

[wbrisette]

I do have some 24/96 recordings of steel drums, not exactly classical, but they do tune certain drums to sound like cello, bass, etc.

In a semi-legit test we did here among a few people I don't think most were able to pick out any differences between sample rates, but some were able to pick out the 24 bit version from the 16 bit version. I think it really depends on the source material for sure.

Wayne

[Petrus]

Steel drums have high dynamic range and a lot of HF content, good source material!

[daco63]

Headroom is a very real advantage of recording in 24/96, but I think a bigger advantage is in post processing.  Straight volume adjustments may be ok, but anything more sophisticated than that (EQ, compression, etc) will start to show the advantages of 24/96 over 16/44.1 in a hurry.

Regarding playback, a good DAC and well executed hardware design can make 16/44.1 playback sound absolutely fantastic, no doubt (provided the source is good).  But the difference between good and poor DAC designs for 16/44.1 can be heard for sure.  I suspect that the improved resolution of 24/96 should make it easier for the hardware designers to achieve higher quality playback, so I think that 24/96 will indeed make a difference in the average performance of mid- and low-priced playback systems.

I also suspect the very high-end audio guys may be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 sources on their systems, but that's way out of my league.

- Dave

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

but that's way out of my league.
- Dave

You might be surprised.  You can build a damn good system on a budget if you follow the upgrade path that a lot of us have.

[Tim]

what he said

[daco63]

Hmmm... what do you consider "budget"?

And what is this "path" of which you speak?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

This has been covered from various angles in other posts but the basic idea is:

Build a system up over time and conserve money by trading up.  It works for playback systems the same as it does for recording gear.  Do the required research so that you can select quality gear that has a reputation for being durable and holds resale value.  If you buy well respected gear, you can sell it when you get ready to move up.  Pick the very best components you already have and build around them to start.

I have two basic policies I follow:

1) I research the next upgrade while I'm saving money.  I study audiogon and the prices so that I know how common a good unit is on the market what a good price is.  Then I wait for the right unit to come up and the price I think is fair.  My goal is simply to minimize depreciation. 

2) I try to upgrade two levels of quality when I upgrade any component so that nothing gets out grown soon without having one component way outside the range of the rest of the system.  That reduces churn (saves money) and when one piece jumps ahead of the rest of the system, it usually has some unlocked potential that comes out when another piece is upgraded in the future.  So I get usually get really nice results each upgrade.

There are a lot of differing opinions but if I had to start from scratch today and had a limited budget, I would do something like this and try to do each step every 6-10 months.  Except for the first one, each of these upgrade can be in the $500 range.  Most people throw away more than $50 a month on that last beer or eating out at lunch.

1) get a good pair of monitors and stands and a good solid state integrated with digital inputs.  Use a PC or field recorder to push bits.  start saving for step 2.
2) next upgrade, get a very good DAC and still use PC or recorder for playback.  start saving for step 3.
3) decide if the speakers or integrated is weakest and upgrade the weakest one next. 
4) upgrade what you didn't in step 3.
5) depending on how good the DAC is, either go back to (2) or cycle though (3) and (4) on more time.
6) maybe eventually get a stand alone optical but these days I'd just use a networked storage device or the DVD reader in a PC to feed the DAC.

It is important to keep a synergy between all the pieces.  A $3000 speaker is going to sound not much better than a $300 speaker if its driven by poor upstream gear.  So spread the investment around.  Cables do make an audible difference but initally not so much, so just get some well constructed cables and worry about the esoteric ones later.  At some point, room treatments will be the best upgrade so consider those in there somewhere.

[daco63]

Wow.  Thank you! I see what you mean about carefully selecting pieces with resale in mind so that you can cash them in later for upgrades.  That seems key, or else the steps to move into the better pieces later would be too large.  Makes sense.  That's quite a different approach from trying to shop for the "best value" piece within your budget, which is what I normally do...

I'm guessing there is a certain timing/cadence for this to work too, right?  If you wait too long, the gear might start to obsolete and lose its popularity and value...

I'll go check for other threads on this topic.  Thanks again!

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I'm guessing there is a certain timing/cadence for this to work too, right?  If you wait too long, the gear might start to obsolete and lose its popularity and value...

Thats the thing about really good quality gear, it rarely goes obsolete in this context.  I have a conrad johnson tube amp in my system.  It is out of production now but the model is very highly regarded.  The usual price on agon is between $100 less to $300 more than I paid.  This one will continue to be "desirable" for years.  It's like some vintage macintosh tube gear that never falls out of favor.  Eventually the caps might start to fail, but I can have them replaced and it uses common tubes.

There are a lot of people on here who can help you because so many of us have been through the same path.  You'll be amazed what you can hear in your recordings with a nice playback system.

[nickgregory]

even though he is a caps fan (and as a result it is safe to assume he has questionable taste ) Michael speaks the truth, and has a kick ass playback system

[daco63]

I'm starting a new thread to ask for advice on my system... [/hijack]

[spcyrfc]

This has been covered from various angles in other posts but the basic idea is:

Build a system up over time and conserve money by trading up.  It works for playback systems the same as it does for recording gear.  Do the required research so that you can select quality gear that has a reputation for being durable and holds resale value.  If you buy well respected gear, you can sell it when you get ready to move up.  Pick the very best components you already have and build around them to start.

I have two basic policies I follow:

1) I research the next upgrade while I'm saving money.  I study audiogon and the prices so that I know how common a good unit is on the market what a good price is.  Then I wait for the right unit to come up and the price I think is fair.  My goal is simply to minimize depreciation. 

2) I try to upgrade two levels of quality when I upgrade any component so that nothing gets out grown soon without having one component way outside the range of the rest of the system.  That reduces churn (saves money) and when one piece jumps ahead of the rest of the system, it usually has some unlocked potential that comes out when another piece is upgraded in the future.  So I get usually get really nice results each upgrade.

There are a lot of differing opinions but if I had to start from scratch today and had a limited budget, I would do something like this and try to do each step every 6-10 months.  Except for the first one, each of these upgrade can be in the $500 range.  Most people throw away more than $50 a month on that last beer or eating out at lunch.

1) get a good pair of monitors and stands and a good solid state integrated with digital inputs.  Use a PC or field recorder to push bits.  start saving for step 2.
2) next upgrade, get a very good DAC and still use PC or recorder for playback.  start saving for step 3.
3) decide if the speakers or integrated is weakest and upgrade the weakest one next. 
4) upgrade what you didn't in step 3.
5) depending on how good the DAC is, either go back to (2) or cycle though (3) and (4) on more time.
6) maybe eventually get a stand alone optical but these days I'd just use a networked storage device or the DVD reader in a PC to feed the DAC.

It is important to keep a synergy between all the pieces.  A $3000 speaker is going to sound not much better than a $300 speaker if its driven by poor upstream gear.  So spread the investment around.  Cables do make an audible difference but initally not so much, so just get some well constructed cables and worry about the esoteric ones later.  At some point, room treatments will be the best upgrade so consider those in there somewhere.

very nice info.  i think it should be in an appropriately titled thread... "getting your playback started" or some such
 

[boyacrobat]

can be heard
stick all your defence of 16/44 in the bin.

fractions of sound not good enough to represent the source of sound.
source of sound better handled by 24/96 and above.

bunch of tight asses still defending the decimation of logic.
represent self with more value , rec in a higher realm than 16/44.

g

[boojum]

I cannot see that more than one person has taken the time to read the original article, which has not stopped anyone from criticizing it.  And, the usual practice in disputing tests is to conduct your own doing exactly the same thing seeing if your results are different.  I see no effort here of that either.  Lots of smoke, but not much light.

Here is an interesting link, but I doubt very much that anyone will follow it as it leads to facts and knowledge.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

I am looking forward to learned discussion and the obligatory tests to disprove the AES and BAS.

Cheers

[daco63]

I cannot see that more than one person has taken the time to read the original article, which has not stopped anyone from criticizing it.  And, the usual practice in disputing tests is to conduct your own doing exactly the same thing seeing if your results are different.  I see no effort here of that either.  Lots of smoke, but not much light.

Here is an interesting link, but I doubt very much that anyone will follow it as it leads to facts and knowledge.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

I am looking forward to learned discussion and the obligatory tests to disprove the AES and BAS.

Cheers

The original article is not available to read unless you are an AES member.  The link you provided gives some hints though.

Not having read the original study, it still strikes me as incorrect to make such a broad generalized statement from this kind of testing.  What's being tested is whether or not you can hear differences as processed through a particular DAC.  I would expect high quality DACs to process 16/44 content very gracefully, which apparently, these do.  It may also be that these particular DACs compromize potential 24/96 performance in order to optimize 16/44 performance...  But who knows?  This kind of testing doesn't appear to take those factors into account (but again, I haven't read the full study).

I think if you really wanted to conclusively demonstrate that there can be an audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96, your best bet would be to design a DAC specifically for that purpose.

Just my thoughts on it. I'm no expert.

- Dave