In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



Are you aware of this?:

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophi...or-itunes.html

Nope.

Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

Nope. Just had a look, though. cf below...


[snip]

Nice hyperbole they use. :-) But I presume you've been playing 96k/24
LPCM for longer than I have without needing either a Mac or iToons.
So, like myself, quite aware that you don't need a commercial OS or
software to play 96k/24bit files.

SACD and DVD-A, RIP.

Well, a number of small labels do still issue CD/SACD hybrid discs. (The
last three Linn discs I've bought are like this.[1]) I have considered
trying to re-record one or two as 96k/24bit LPCM just out of curiosity.[2]
But as yet haven't got around to it as I've been doing other things.

Odd the way the 'market' gives the customer what they don't want. I had no
real interest in SACD or DVD-A. But I'd have been (and would now be) happy
to pay a bit more for a DVD providing 96k/24 LPCM with no DRM or
proprietary format, and was well produced, etc. As per one of the points
you made, the main reason being to get versions that are produced without
excess level compression and other imposed problems, and to then be able to
use it as I choose for my personal use.

The snag is, of course, as the URL you provided warns. Some companies will
simply use this to 're-sell' garbage with a nice label.[3] I have no doubt
some will do this (and probably already do). However labels like
Chandos, I think, do offer something more genuine. The irony is that
you can tell this from the high quality of their CDs. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Can't yet comment on the SACD layers as I don't normally bother with
them. But the CDDA layers sound good.

[2] If nothing else, useful as test files for my computer hardware+software
setups.

[3] 180grm LP anyone? :-]

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

That was my experience. But I managed to find the article by using the
search box on the page and asking for "24 bit bad".

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

David.

Sorry. Check your setup and ISP as it worked when I posted it, and it works
now. Jim found it.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

David.

Sorry. Check your setup and ISP as it worked when I posted it, and it
works now. Jim found it.

I assumed the link didn't work directly here because by default I have
javascript and frames disabled on the browser I use most of the time.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

That was my experience. But I managed to find the article
by using the search box on the page and asking for "24
bit bad".

Interesting. I see that Gizmodo has country-specific URLs. For business
reasons they may not all all country-specific sites to be accessed from all
countries.

The #! part of the URL shows up in just the US site's URL. The uk, ca, and
au URLs lack it.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

That was my experience. But I managed to find the article by using the
search box on the page and asking for "24 bit bad".

Yes, that's what I did in the end, only I searched on just "24 bit".

I entirely agree with the author of that article, I can see no point in
24bit for audio intended for domestic listening. The only difference between
16bit and 24bit is the S/N ratio, and who needs a higher S/N ratio than the
90dB or so of 16bit?

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

That was my experience. But I managed to find the article by using the
search box on the page and asking for "24 bit bad".

Yes, that's what I did in the end, only I searched on just "24 bit".

I entirely agree with the author of that article, I can see no point in
24bit for audio intended for domestic listening. The only difference
between 16bit and 24bit is the S/N ratio, and who needs a higher S/N
ratio than the 90dB or so of 16bit?

That depends. :-)

In theory, people making 44.1k/16 recordings for CDDA will take care to
avoid any clipping or level compression and keep the mean and peak levels
well clear of 0dBFS. They will also carefully downconvert from the 'master'
recordings at higher rate and larger sample depth and employ an optimum
choice of downsampling method, dithering, and noise-shaping. You will then
play the result using a DAC with excellent reconstruction filtering that
does no damage to the inband signals whilst killing the out-of-band
garbage.

In practice there are measurable signs this often doesn't happen. Mainly
due to the laziness, idiocy, or sheer arrogance of those making CDs. e.g.
the obsession with "louder is better".

Choosing something like 96k/24 may avoid such severe downsampling
processes. There is a lot more 'elbow room' for avoiding problems in
downsampling if you are going from, say, 192k/24 to 96k/24 than right down
to 44.1k/16. It also makes the job of the DAC easier as the reconstruction
filtering doesn't have to be as 'brick shaped' to get you good results to
above 20kHz without aliased crap.

Secondly, just as some will doubtless use '96k/24' to sell the same rubbish
again, others will use it as a flag that the buyer is serious about sound
quality. e.g. the way some of the early dual releases were 'better' on
DVD-A or SACD because they had been processed to give different results.
The assumption being that the DVD-A or SACD buyer did *not* want sounds
compressed to death, etc.

So in theory it probably should make no difference. But in practice it may.
Note that I have been talking about small specialist companies like Chandos
and Linnrecords. Even from their CDs you can tell they take care. The irony
I pointed out was that this may mean you have *less* reason to expect their
'high rez' files to sound better. :-) But it may point a direction for
others.

I can't comment as yet on any 'inherent' audible differences. Not heard any
96k/24 beyond a few brief test files. And my hearing probably isn't 'golden
eared' anyway. But it may well give audibly better results with excellent
setups in some cases. However my interest is to reduce the processes the
biz uses to furtle up the transfer from original recording to the item you
buy. These processes - in theory - don't matter much. But in practice I
suspect they do matter in many cases.

As usual, though, the basic two rules of the market will fight it out.

A) You can only buy what someone will offer for sale.

B) commercial 'success' then hinges on what items on offer people actually
buy, and how much they will pay.

Think of it this way. A cheap and crappy 'mp3 download' output for the mass
market with a low cost-per-item. (Probably mostly pop music.) Then in
parallel a high quality 'hi rez' output which sells in much smaller
quantities - but with a higher markup - aimed at those who want much better
sound quality for content that justifies it. (Probably specialist music
types like Classical, Jazz, etc.)

There are *some* upward pressures here. The BBC 320k stream is a nice
example. As are Chandos, Linn, and a select few others. But how this will
turn out, I have no idea.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


The link seems to be broken.

That was my experience. But I managed to find the article by using the
search box on the page and asking for "24 bit bad".

Yes, that's what I did in the end, only I searched on just "24 bit".

I entirely agree with the author of that article, I can see no point in
24bit for audio intended for domestic listening. The only difference
between 16bit and 24bit is the S/N ratio, and who needs a higher S/N
ratio than the 90dB or so of 16bit?

That depends. :-)

In theory, people making 44.1k/16 recordings for CDDA will take care to
avoid any clipping or level compression and keep the mean and peak levels
well clear of 0dBFS. They will also carefully downconvert from the
'master'
recordings at higher rate and larger sample depth and employ an optimum
choice of downsampling method, dithering, and noise-shaping. You will then
play the result using a DAC with excellent reconstruction filtering that
does no damage to the inband signals whilst killing the out-of-band
garbage.

In practice there are measurable signs this often doesn't happen. Mainly
due to the laziness, idiocy, or sheer arrogance of those making CDs. e.g.
the obsession with "louder is better".

Choosing something like 96k/24 may avoid such severe downsampling
processes. There is a lot more 'elbow room' for avoiding problems in
downsampling if you are going from, say, 192k/24 to 96k/24 than right down
to 44.1k/16. It also makes the job of the DAC easier as the reconstruction
filtering doesn't have to be as 'brick shaped' to get you good results to
above 20kHz without aliased crap.

Secondly, just as some will doubtless use '96k/24' to sell the same
rubbish
again, others will use it as a flag that the buyer is serious about sound
quality. e.g. the way some of the early dual releases were 'better' on
DVD-A or SACD because they had been processed to give different results.
The assumption being that the DVD-A or SACD buyer did *not* want sounds
compressed to death, etc.

So in theory it probably should make no difference. But in practice it
may.
Note that I have been talking about small specialist companies like
Chandos
and Linnrecords. Even from their CDs you can tell they take care. The
irony
I pointed out was that this may mean you have *less* reason to expect
their
'high rez' files to sound better. :-) But it may point a direction for
others.

I can't comment as yet on any 'inherent' audible differences. Not heard
any
96k/24 beyond a few brief test files. And my hearing probably isn't
'golden
eared' anyway. But it may well give audibly better results with excellent
setups in some cases. However my interest is to reduce the processes the
biz uses to furtle up the transfer from original recording to the item you
buy. These processes - in theory - don't matter much. But in practice I
suspect they do matter in many cases.

As usual, though, the basic two rules of the market will fight it out.

A) You can only buy what someone will offer for sale.

B) commercial 'success' then hinges on what items on offer people actually
buy, and how much they will pay.

Think of it this way. A cheap and crappy 'mp3 download' output for the
mass
market with a low cost-per-item. (Probably mostly pop music.) Then in
parallel a high quality 'hi rez' output which sells in much smaller
quantities - but with a higher markup - aimed at those who want much
better
sound quality for content that justifies it. (Probably specialist music
types like Classical, Jazz, etc.)

There are *some* upward pressures here. The BBC 320k stream is a nice
example. As are Chandos, Linn, and a select few others. But how this will
turn out, I have no idea.


I read through your post carefully, Jim, looking for the bit where you
explained *why* a domestic listener might need an S/N ratio greater than
90dB, but failed to find it. Instead I read a load of stuff about people
taking care, and the possibility of the *label* "24-bit" being used to imply
an "audiophile" quality recording. Oh, and there was also some stuff about
the possible advantages of 96k vs 44.1k, but neither the original article,
nor my comment, addressed *that* issue.

I don't dispute that, under ideal circumstances, some listeners (those with
younger ears than mine) might detect a marginal improvement in going from
44.1k to 96k. But as to 24-bit? nah!

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
[big snip]


I read through your post carefully, Jim, looking for the bit where you
explained *why* a domestic listener might need an S/N ratio greater than
90dB, but failed to find it. Instead I read a load of stuff about people
taking care, and the possibility of the *label* "24-bit" being used to
imply an "audiophile" quality recording. Oh, and there was also some
stuff about the possible advantages of 96k vs 44.1k, but neither the
original article, nor my comment, addressed *that* issue.

You may need to get out more, David. Take a walk in the garden and clear
your head. :-) To simplify in the hope of making what I already said
clearer to you:

A) 96k/24 may bring the advantage in practice that the producers don't foul
up what they flog on that basis as much as they often do when they flog the
same content in other formats. Instead of "louder is better" etc, they may
provide versions on the basis that the customer does want good quality.
Nothing to do with the technology of CDDA. Everything to do with the
attitudes of the sellers re the customers.

B) We can only buy (or refuse to buy) what someone puts on sale.

C) Only time will tell *if* we are given the chance.

I don't dispute that, under ideal circumstances, some listeners (those
with younger ears than mine) might detect a marginal improvement in
going from 44.1k to 96k. But as to 24-bit? nah!

Again to clarify. My comments had little or nothing to do with what CDDA
and 96k/24 are technically capable of. They were really about having the
companies realise they have potential customers who will pay (more) for
decent audio quality. My guess is that those who have little interest in
audio quality probably *won't* pay them. They will switch to bootleg
download mp3s.

I don't know what will happen. I expect the big music companies to fold
because most people really don't care about them or audio quality.
Personally I won't miss them *provided* their back catalogue isn't lost to
us all. But (A) might give an income from the back catalogue if handled
well. Thus help the content to remain available.

I suspect the survivors will be small specialist labels who find they can
sell high quality recordings to a small number of enthusiasts. At the
moment they seem to do this by making decent CDs, perhaps as CD/SACD
hybrids. They are also selling 'high rez' downloads as well. Time will
tell.

Put it this way: Just as the webpage Arny pointed to showed some will just
use 96k/24 as a 'flag' under which to see the same old crap. Others could
use it to 'flag' a serious interest in quality. However I suspect the mass
market will have no real interest in the former when they feel that what
they get sounds just like a bootleg download mp3. Whereas the latter may
attract paying customers as a niche market *if and when* it really does
sound good. Maybe CDDA would sound as good. But who would care if they can
get the 96k/24 for much the same price as CDDA becomes a low-volume item?

As I kept pointing out, I am happy enough with *well done* CDDA, and I have
no crystal ball. But the market dynamics may lead us to the division
between cheap/free mp3 and specialist 'high rez'. GIven that choice, the
one remaining factor to the advantage of CDDA is the physical disc in a box
with printed notes.

In fact you can argue that something like 96k/24 or 192k/24 on a DVD in a
box with notes is just as cheap and easy to make as CDDA. So why not, if
this is what the division in the market points towards? :-)

Hope you now follow that. If not, I'll give up. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html