Turk 182

16 bit / 44.1 khz - is it all we need ?

Recommended Posts

hi

16 bit / 44.1khz i believe was chosen as the standard for "red book cd" as this specification provides ample sound quality to reproduce music accurately.

i believe sacd was released with a higher specification but never really caught on and having done a little research the higher resolution files often sound "different" but not always "better"...

i have noted that msb technologies always demonstrate their sky high priced products using bog standard 16 bit / 44.1 khz redbook cds almost as if to prove how good they can sound.

so do we really need anything of a higher spec ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around 100kHz should be  minimum sampling frequency. the reconstruction filter does not really work on music, it has to make up to much, from not enough information, whatever the maths says.

today's opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dave said:

Around 100kHz should be  minimum sampling frequency. the reconstruction filter does not really work on music, it has to make up to much, from not enough information, whatever the maths says.

today's opinion.

hi dave and thanks for the reply.

so 16 bit / 44.1khz is not really a high enough spec then !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this question has been beaten to death :)

And there seem to be 2 opposite views. There are those Americans across the pond, who claim improvements with higher sampling rates, so much so, that lots of folks are upsampling their CD rips to DSD and then feeding it to their dac's. 

I actually do the exact opposite :D

I down convert everything to 16/44 in my roon server, then feed that to my dac.  But that is because my dac doesn't do DSD. However it does sample rates up to 24/192. So I can only comment between 16/44 and 24/192 samples of the same DSD track. And in my system , to my ears I can't hear a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

The difference between a good recording and a bad one is WAY more important.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, meninblack said:

The difference between a good recording and a bad one is WAY more important.

I was about to say the same. Sadly the sampling frequency rarely gets a chance to be the limiting factor.

I've not spent time looking into whether higher sample rates may be beneficial or not since for me a hifi is a tool for playing available music which in physical form is still overwhelmingly red book. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
7 hours ago, Turk 182 said:

16 bit / 44.1khz i believe was chosen as the standard for "red book cd" as this specification provides ample sound quality to reproduce music accurately.

Not quite. This was the best technology available at that time. In fact, the first Sony demo of 16/44.1 needed so much electronics that it would not fit into a standard case. Philips did not have reliable 16 bit technology so their first CD players were 14 bit. But in the numbers game it was considered a downer so they soon developed16 bit players. And there are tales that Herbert Van......wanted Beethovens 9th on one CD which at 74 mins meant 16/44.1 for the capacity of the optical disc.

Of course perfect sound forever was back-fitted. You could get 0-22KHz frequency response at 96 db dynamic range, who could want for more? 

But there were problems with having to use brick wall filters to allow music at 20kHz through but no carrier signal at 22 kHz. And jitter and digital noise and.... thereby hangs a long tale. 

Ironically that the man at the helm of Audionote does not believe in using any filters (digital or analogue) and thinks 16/44.1 is ideal. But then he uses valves which naturally roll off.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meninblack said:

The difference between a good recording and a bad one is WAY more important.

hi meninblack

so a well recorded 16 bit / 44.1 khz cd is all we really need then ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, newlash09 said:

I guess this question has been beaten to death :)

And there seem to be 2 opposite views. There are those Americans across the pond, who claim improvements with higher sampling rates, so much so, that lots of folks are upsampling their CD rips to DSD and then feeding it to their dac's. 

I actually do the exact opposite :D

I down convert everything to 16/44 in my roon server, then feed that to my dac.  But that is because my dac doesn't do DSD. However it does sample rates up to 24/192. So I can only comment between 16/44 and 24/192 samples of the same DSD track. And in my system , to my ears I can't hear a difference. 

hi newlash09

so you can not detect a difference between "16/44 and 24/192" -like i have read many people can not often hear the difference so may not be needed !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George 47 said:

Not quite. This was the best technology available at that time. In fact, the first Sony demo of 16/44.1 needed so much electronics that it would not fit into a standard case. Philips did not have reliable 16 bit technology so their first CD players were 14 bit. But in the numbers game it was considered a downer so they soon developed16 bit players. And there are tales that Herbert Van......wanted Beethovens 9th on one CD which at 74 mins meant 16/44.1 for the capacity of the optical disc.

Of course perfect sound forever was back-fitted. You could get 0-22KHz frequency response at 96 db dynamic range, who could want for more? 

But there were problems with having to use brick wall filters to allow music at 20kHz through but no carrier signal at 22 kHz. And jitter and digital noise and.... thereby hangs a long tale. 

Ironically that the man at the helm of Audionote does not believe in using any filters (digital or analogue) and thinks 16/44.1 is ideal. But then he uses valves which naturally roll off.

hi george 47

interesting information i was not aware of - apologies all i might of opened a can of worms here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
5 minutes ago, Turk 182 said:

hi meninblack

so a well recorded 16 bit / 44.1 khz cd is all we really need then ! 

All we really need is vinyl. :D

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Turk 182 said:

hi newlash09

so you can not detect a difference between "16/44 and 24/192" -like i have read many people can not often hear the difference so may not be needed !

Hi Turk :)

I've tried down sampling the best quality DSD track i have ( Giorgio by moroder from Random access memories)  to both 16/44 and again to 24/192. And both these sample rates were fed to the same dac. And I couldn't hear a difference in the playback. It would probably take a lot better ears than me, to be able to make out the 16/44 from the 24/196, in a blind test. 

And the down sampling was carried out by the roon software, running on a dedicated roon server. And both tracks were fed via the same roon end point via the same aes-ebu cable. 

And the funny bit is that the dac has 2 different dac chips. A 16/44 dac chip for dedicated red book CD format, and a separate HD dac chip for 24/192. So despite 2 different dac chips in play, both the sample rates sounded indistinguishable from each other. So i believe the original quality of the record makes the most difference.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Turk 182 said:

16 bit / 44.1khz i believe was chosen as the standard for "red book cd" as this specification provides ample sound quality to reproduce music accurately.

i believe sacd was released with a higher specification but never really caught on and having done a little research the higher resolution files often sound "different" but not always "better"...

i have noted that msb technologies always demonstrate their sky high priced products using bog standard 16 bit / 44.1 khz redbook cds almost as if to prove how good they can sound.

so do we really need anything of a higher spec ?

All to do with the march of time and the improvements in technology - at the time it was the best they could do with what they had.  Now if you were going to introduce a new medium would you say it is "the best we can do with what we have but it may be a bit lacking compared to vinyl" which undoubtedly all the first generation CD players were.  

I am sure if there was a mass market for improved quality (as there has been with film with the march from the original Picture Discs to DVD and now Blue Ray then CD would have been superseded by now and we would have hi res discs as the norm.  The problem is lack of market for hi res discs and so the manufacturers or CD players keep on trying to eek the best they can out of a limited format.  I suspect the future market will be in downloads and streaming which may (or may not) hot up the technology and advancement in high resolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, George 47 said:

Not quite. This was the best technology available at that time. In fact, the first Sony demo of 16/44.1 needed so much electronics that it would not fit into a standard case. Philips did not have reliable 16 bit technology so their first CD players were 14 bit. But in the numbers game it was considered a downer so they soon developed16 bit players. And there are tales that Herbert Van......wanted Beethovens 9th on one CD which at 74 mins meant 16/44.1 for the capacity of the optical disc.

Of course perfect sound forever was back-fitted. You could get 0-22KHz frequency response at 96 db dynamic range, who could want for more? 

But there were problems with having to use brick wall filters to allow music at 20kHz through but no carrier signal at 22 kHz. And jitter and digital noise and.... thereby hangs a long tale. 

Ironically that the man at the helm of Audionote does not believe in using any filters (digital or analogue) and thinks 16/44.1 is ideal. But then he uses valves which naturally roll off.

This was indeed enlightening sir :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

Video is going hi-rez because on today's massive, room-dominating screens, anybody not partially-sighted can see the improvement.  So plenty of people will pay for it.

With audio, I don't see it.  SACD failed because too few people would pay a premium for something most people couldn't hear.  I can't see mainstream audio streaming services being any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.