16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[Kimo]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

 

4. Some people want to hear a difference and their desire makes it impossible to know whether or not it's really there.

5. Some people hear a difference and attribute it to bit-depth even though there's no clear evidence that the bit-depth is the source of whatever difference they're hearing.

Yeah, not so much.

 

I would say that those opinions are often held by members of 2 and 3 on the original list, for rather obvious reasons.  It is not hard to find a real world example, and it is not hard to hear the difference.  Pick up a copy of Steve Hoffman's CCRs "Fortunate Son" and compare the 16/44 layer with the SACD layer on the intro.  If you can't hear the difference, than you needn't worry about extra bits, but most will certainly hear a difference.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

4. Some people want to hear a difference and their desire makes it impossible to know whether or not it's really there.

5. Some people hear a difference and attribute it to bit-depth even though there's no clear evidence that the bit-depth is the source of whatever difference they're hearing.

 

6. Some people are comparing different versions of the same album and attributing the difference to the resolution when in fact it is the mastering that is better. 

[Kimo]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

6. Some people are comparing different versions of the same album but attributing the difference to the resolution when in fact it is the mastering that is better. 

 

In the case I mentioned, the mastering engineer verified the difference isn't do to mastering.  I am not sure how one would master the reverb off the drums anyway.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Kimo said:

 

In the case I mentioned, the mastering engineer verified the difference isn't do to mastering.  I am not sure how one would master the reverb off the drums anyway.

 

My own experience of comparing a number of recordings with the same mastering in different resolutions has convinced me that the differences between Red Book and higher resolution formats are quite subtle WHEN everything else is kept constant.

 

Certainly not the night and day difference that GUTB believes exists.

[Kimo]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

Certainly not the night and day difference that GUTB believes exists.

He either believes more strongly, or hears a lot better, I guess.

 

Sometimes, I can't really pick out much difference, such as with the Beatles remasters.  I believe that those only hit 16 bits on the final step though.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Kimo said:

He either believes more strongly, or hears a lot better, I guess.

 

I'm pretty sure it's the former, not the latter. He appears to be a man of wrong beliefs, strongly held.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

My own experience of comparing a number of recordings with the same mastering in different resolutions has convinced me that the differences between Red Book and higher resolution formats are quite subtle WHEN everything else is kept constant.

It's actually very easy to test this. Take your hi-res recording of choice and reduce it to CD quality using any of the numerous programs available, then compare the result to the original. This way you know for sure that the same master is used for both formats.

[4est]

10 hours ago, numlog said:

So over the past few months I've improved my system in all areas, its not the holy grail of sound but any further improvements will be very subtle refinements.

DXD and DSD128 is pretty spectacular but redbook makes up 99% of the music. As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise.

 

Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low.

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

 

Luckily 24 bit 44.1kHz are pretty common now but there is so much music, particularly electronic and hip hop, where its true essence will be lost inside this inferior format.

 

 

 

 

Have you ever tried converting 16/44.1PCM>DSD using high quality software? If DSD sounds good to you, you might want to try it. I use HQPlayer, but there are others. As others have noted, it sounds like you might have some other issue if you notice it that much.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

What’s your system?

 

A worn tape cassette, barbie headphones, and a spongebob player...

[GUTB]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

 

A worn tape cassette, barbie headphones, and a spongebob player...

 

So you’re just making a statement about your frame of mind connected to how you enjoy audio. That’s a fair position to take, but not an audiophile one.

[fas42]

Historically it has been the norm that 16 replay was lacking - implementation of the playback chain is everything, and merely meeting the normal specs is far short of what's necessary. Hi res is a kludge to make the task easier for lesser circuitry - the simple, and cheapest solution is to upsample all one's 16 bit content to hi res, off line, so to take advantage of having a rig which handles the "superior" format better. Obvious downside is that more storage room is then needed ...

 

One day, hi res will be seen as a 'solution' in the same way as, say, MQA is currently viewed on CA ... .

[AudioDoctor]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

So you’re just making a statement about your frame of mind connected to how you enjoy audio. That’s a fair position to take, but not an audiophile one.

 

...

 

GUTB, only you could think that was a remotely serious answer.  Come on.  You figured out what my system is before, surely you can do it again.

[Hugo9000]

13 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

...

 

GUTB, only you could think that was a remotely serious answer.  Come on.  You figured out what my system is before, surely you can do it again.

Well, I for one am really disappointed that you really aren't listening with Barbie headphones.  I wanted to ask your opinion on whether that was the optimal transducer for this particular treasure:

 

 

 

Here is the MQA version, for comparison:

 

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Well, I for one am really disappointed that you really aren't listening with Barbie headphones.  I wanted to ask your opinion on whether that was the optimal transducer for this particular treasure:

 

 

 

Here is the MQA version, for comparison:

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

Hello Kitty is Japanese. Japanese audiophiles are the best. Therefore, these headphones must be awesome. Or awful. Engrish is very tricky language.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's actually very easy to test this. Take your hi-res recording of choice and reduce it to CD quality using any of the numerous programs available, then compare the result to the original. This way you know for sure that the same master is used for both formats.

 

It's highly instructive to take some hi res tracks from a recognised source - I use those from 2L - and subtract out the extra stuff after creating a CD quality version; and then look at, and listen to the hi res elements after amplifying by enormous amounts - ummm, absolutely nothing of special value. Sometimes, just transients from accidental, non-musical bumps and scrapes in the recording space.

 

If it sounds obviously different, then it's different masterings, or a playback chain that is poor at handling 16 bit format.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It's highly instructive to take some hi res tracks from a recognised source - I use those from 2L - and subtract out the extra stuff after creating a CD quality version; and then look at, and listen to the hi res elements after amplifying by enormous amounts - ummm, absolutely nothing of special value. Sometimes, just transients from accidental, non-musical bumps and scrapes in the recording space.

 

If it sounds obviously different, then it's different masterings, or a playback chain that is poor at handling 16 bit format.

Sounds about right.

[Hugo9000]

 

Please note the very advanced clock.  And the fact that it's a TOP MOUNT CD player!!  How audiophile is that?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

Please note the very advanced clock.  And the fact that it's a TOP MOUNT CD player!!  How audiophile is that?

But is it a Tice clock?

[Hugo9000]

Obviously, it's much better!

 

Oh, and here are some specs on those headphones that kumakuma showed us:

 

Specifications:

• Handmade 40mm Drivers
• Frequency Response 20Hz - 20KHz
• Impedance 32 ohm
• Sensitivity 108dB
• Max Input Power 100mW
• Distortion degree <3%
• 3.5mm plug
• Cord length 1.5m +/-3%
• Plug type dia3.5 stereo
• Rated power 100mw

 

HANDMADE drivers!!!

 

http://www.iheadphones.co.uk/hello-kitty-in-the-city-pink.html

[AudioDoctor]

I misspoke, it is both a tape and CD player.  Also, an integrated amplifier.

[AudioDoctor]

I upgraded from this.  The DAC is much better in the new one.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

I misspoke, it is both a tape and CD player.  Also, an integrated amplifier.

The bass is a bit squishy.

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, mansr said:

The bass is a bit squishy.

 

 

Haha, well that happens in a pineapple under the sea...

[cjf]

In almost every case, my older original Redbook copies of a given album sound better than the same album in HiRes. I suspect most of this is due to original mastering skill or lack there of in reference to the newer HiRes copy.

 

The tone deaf millennial artists will ensure the death of anything that resembles real HiFi in the future. Do they even use real instruments anymore?

 

I throw up in my own mouth everytime I'm forced to hear something new on the radio these days.