24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense
Discussion
Following on from the "Interesting article on expensive ethernet cables" thread there was a link on The Register website for an interesting article about digital downloads.
I leave the floor open for comments.
I leave the floor open for comments.
It's a slightly different argument to cables - at least here there's the possibility of extra data.
For most people there's no chance of hearing a difference, you'd need a decent stereo to spot it and most people don't have one of those, but theoretically (and ignored by that article as far as I could tell) there's the issue of harmonics, which will still have an effect even if some of the notes can't be heard.
It's probably a waste of money, but I reckon it's a better waste of money than $500 ethernet cables.
For most people there's no chance of hearing a difference, you'd need a decent stereo to spot it and most people don't have one of those, but theoretically (and ignored by that article as far as I could tell) there's the issue of harmonics, which will still have an effect even if some of the notes can't be heard.
It's probably a waste of money, but I reckon it's a better waste of money than $500 ethernet cables.
telecat said:
Easy to get hold of them to check at least. I do prefer High Band Music when I can get it. Latest was Muses "Drones" in 24/96. When I have the 16/44.1 and 24/(48/96/192), I prefer the 24 bit version. "The 2nd law" was a better album though.
The thing I've found is you have to be careful you are genuinely comparing the same music at different bit rates and depths. I say that because I have some 24bit albums that do sound better than the 16bit version I own, however transcoding the 24bit file to 16bit still sounds better. IMO the master used and not the bit rate is important.Timing is far more important than resolution, however, to get the timing we need the resolution or higher sampling rate, but more for encoding than playback.
So I sort of agree.
It seems we have been chasing the wrong thing for the last few years in regards to 'quality'.
And with no digital smearing of the timing on vinyl it shows why so many still love it so much.
So I sort of agree.
It seems we have been chasing the wrong thing for the last few years in regards to 'quality'.
And with no digital smearing of the timing on vinyl it shows why so many still love it so much.
FlossyThePig said:
Following on from the "Interesting article on expensive ethernet cables" thread there was a link on The Register website for an interesting article about digital downloads.
I leave the floor open for comments.
I agree with Telecat's comments re. digital jitter/smearing and the relative benefits of vinyl. I'm looking forward to hear what benefits MQA might bring; Chord's work with fpga DACs, and the market response to HUGO, suggests that timing accuracy timing is critical. http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-techno...I leave the floor open for comments.
There is a very similar thread realating to 24/96 here. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=5&a...
The Xiph Neil Young article is referenced in that thread too but there are some other interesting links.
JimbobVFR said:
The thing I've found is you have to be careful you are genuinely comparing the same music at different bit rates and depths. I say that because I have some 24bit albums that do sound better than the 16bit version I own, however transcoding the 24bit file to 16bit still sounds better. IMO the master used and not the bit rate is important.
That is what I have found. I'd prefer to listen to a 320k MP3 of a decent master rather than a 24bit version of a poor one.That said, I do buy 24bit when I can and some of them do sound really good compared to the CD, but again that is probably just because the mastering was better in the first place.
Crackie said:
FlossyThePig said:
Following on from the "Interesting article on expensive ethernet cables" thread there was a link on The Register website for an interesting article about digital downloads.
I leave the floor open for comments.
I agree with Telecat's comments re. digital jitter/smearing and the relative benefits of vinyl. I'm looking forward to hear what benefits MQA might bring; Chord's work with fpga DACs, and the market response to HUGO, suggests that timing accuracy timing is critical. http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-techno...I leave the floor open for comments.
There is a very similar thread realating to 24/96 here. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=5&a...
The Xiph Neil Young article is referenced in that thread too but there are some other interesting links.
kingston12 said:
JimbobVFR said:
The thing I've found is you have to be careful you are genuinely comparing the same music at different bit rates and depths. I say that because I have some 24bit albums that do sound better than the 16bit version I own, however transcoding the 24bit file to 16bit still sounds better. IMO the master used and not the bit rate is important.
That is what I have found. I'd prefer to listen to a 320k MP3 of a decent master rather than a 24bit version of a poor one.That said, I do buy 24bit when I can and some of them do sound really good compared to the CD, but again that is probably just because the mastering was better in the first place.
I have a mixture of 24/192 and "normal" music and sometimes the 24bit stuff is clearly superior and other times it's not.
I wouldn't call it smoke and mirrors in the same way as expensive ethernet cables are a con as I can see the logic behind it and can actually hear a difference on certain albums, but it's not consistent. If an album is the same price, then I'll always buy it as 24 bit.
Forums | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff