"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

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

In article , David
Looser wrote:


Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because
they think downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to
downloads to get 96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because
they regard that as "better fidelity" than CD. How
often they would be right to think this is another
matter... :-)

Are you aware of this?:

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

Nope.

Or this?

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


"...this is a rumor about one of the most tight-lipped
companies in the world, but more and more people are
talking about Apple offering HD files via their
uber-profitable, iTunes music store.

But are they going to be suppling DRM-free 'HD' LPCM/FLAC
- as for example Linn and Chandos have already been doing
here in the UK for some time? Indeed, they are also
providing 192k/24 DRM-free. Although once again I can't
say how often that sounds 'better' or even 'different' to
ye olde CDDA.

It could at least sound different if remastered.

"If Apple really starts selling their music in HD
formats like 24/96 stereo you will finally have the
ultimate "killer application" for audiophiles. For the
first time since the Compact Disc there would be a
reason to buy your music collection all over again. "

The last such opportunity was the SACD and DVD-A.

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.

Looks like Apple play the same game as MS and tell their
users that they are making a great 'advance'... that
others have already made without having to use their
commercial or tied software. :-)

Agreed. We are already seeing the non-genius of the post-Steve Jobs Apple?
:-(

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...-where-patrick

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.

"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

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

"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.