Strider

'Hi-rez' music is dire

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, liffy99 said:

So, that looks like a 60dB dynamic range and high frequencies up to about 12k ? 
Well within the compass of Red Book CD ?

Indeed. I bought the download in 16/44.1 but in this particular case I think that the difference with 24-bit might be audible with a more resolving system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High-Resolution Audio : Bit Depth

(...)

At a bit depth of 16 to 22 bits, the accuracy of our digital notation begins to exceed the accuracy of the analog audio being captured by our digital system. At a bit depth of about 21 to 22 bits, we begin to exceed the capabilities of the very best audio A/D and D/A converters. And, at a bit depth of about 22-bits, we begin to exceed the capabilities of human hearing. The last limit, human hearing, is a hard and fast limit that will not change. The others will improve as technology progresses.

(...)

Is a 24-bit Release Better than a 16-bit Release?

24-bit releases are often remastered from the original and may take advantage of newer production equipment and techniques. These differences will vastly overshadow any differences that are purely due to changes in bit depth. It is not uncommon to hear real differences in the sound of 24-bit re-releases. But these differences are almost certainly not related to the extended bit depth.

If we ignore any differences in mastering and if we ignore the possible benefits of the higher sample rate that is usually used with a 24-bit release, does a 24-bit release still offer advantages?

The answer is that a 24-bit release can be slightly quieter than a 16-bit release if the recording itself has a sufficient SNR. When a recording is sufficiently quiet, the advantages of a 24-bit delivery format will only be detectable if the playback system has an adequate SNR. The difference will also require sufficient playback volume to raise the noise above the threshold of hearing. Lets look at the numbers:

Earlier, we established that our ears have a 130 dB dynamic range. Without noise shaping, a 16-bit recording can only achieve an SNR of 93 dB. This falls well short of the 130 dB dynamic range of our auditory system. With noise shaping, a 16-bit recording can achieve a perceived SNR of about 118 dB. This is much closer to the 130 dB limit of our ears, but still somewhat short of an ideal system. In contrast, a 24-bit delivery format is capable of transmitting an incredible 141 dB SNR. The 24-bit format exceeds the capabilities of our ears and our recording equipment. It also exceeds the capabilities of all playback systems, so how much improvement can we really achieve with a 24-bit delivery format?

If our playback system were entirely noise-free, and we cranked the system up to a level that produced ear-splitting 130 dB SPL peaks, the 24-bit system could be 12 dB quieter than the noise-shaped 16-bit system. If we turned the system down by 12 dB, there would be no perceptible difference in the noise, and no perceptible improvement provided by the 24-bit word length. Remember we assumed an entirely noise-free playback system, and still we need to hit some really high playback levels before the 24-bit system offers any advantages!

Where is the Bottleneck?

The biggest bottleneck in most playback systems is the SNR of the playback equipment, not the lack of 24-bit source material. In most cases, the playback equipment will not even be capable of rendering the 118 dB perceived SNR that can be transmitted on a noise-shaped 16-bit channel.

Why do We Need 24-bit Audio?

The real advantage provided by 24-bit systems is the ability to record and produce releases that can fully utilize the SNR available in a 16-bit system. High-quality 16-bit recordings cannot be produced using a 16-bit processing chain. But a 24-bit processing chain can create 16-bit recordings that push the limits of most playback systems. There is certainly no harm in delivering a 24-bit product to the end user, but it may offer nothing more than what could have been delivered on a 16-bit format.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

Edited by tuga
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, liffy99 said:

if a recording was originally made at ‘high res’ then by all means market a ‘high res’ product, and if you can hear the difference (very doubtful) buy it. But don’t fall for the con of reissuing lower res tracks in a high res wrapper. That’s like dropping a Mini engine in a Rolls and calling the result a Rolls !

To a large extent I agree with you. There does appear to be an awful lot of "same stuff in a bigger bucket" going on. I make no claim to have golden ears, and I know fine well that I can't hear as high as 20kHz any longer. However, I've heard just enough in DSD and high res Flac that makes me pause. Sometimes you wonder how much might be down to it being mixed/mastered differently for the different format though. One thing I've found is that I seem to notice higher sample rates more that higher bit depth. Naturally, it could all be in my head. It's still all too much of a lottery for me to actually pay a premium for any hi-res music. Besides, I'm old enough to actually still want something physical for my money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tuga said:

High-Resolution Audio : Bit Depth

(...)

At a bit depth of 16 to 22 bits, the accuracy of our digital notation begins to exceed the accuracy of the analog audio being captured by our digital system. At a bit depth of about 21 to 22 bits, we begin to exceed the capabilities of the very best audio A/D and D/A converters. And, at a bit depth of about 22-bits, we begin to exceed the capabilities of human hearing. The last limit, human hearing, is a hard and fast limit that will not change. The others will improve as technology progresses.

(...)

Is a 24-bit Release Better than a 16-bit Release?

24-bit releases are often remastered from the original and may take advantage of newer production equipment and techniques. These differences will vastly overshadow any differences that are purely due to changes in bit depth. It is not uncommon to hear real differences in the sound of 24-bit re-releases. But these differences are almost certainly not related to the extended bit depth.

If we ignore any differences in mastering and if we ignore the possible benefits of the higher sample rate that is usually used with a 24-bit release, does a 24-bit release still offer advantages?

The answer is that a 24-bit release can be slightly quieter than a 16-bit release if the recording itself has a sufficient SNR. When a recording is sufficiently quiet, the advantages of a 24-bit delivery format will only be detectable if the playback system has an adequate SNR. The difference will also require sufficient playback volume to raise the noise above the threshold of hearing. Lets look at the numbers:

Earlier, we established that our ears have a 130 dB dynamic range. Without noise shaping, a 16-bit recording can only achieve an SNR of 93 dB. This falls well short of the 130 dB dynamic range of our auditory system. With noise shaping, a 16-bit recording can achieve a perceived SNR of about 118 dB. This is much closer to the 130 dB limit of our ears, but still somewhat short of an ideal system. In contrast, a 24-bit delivery format is capable of transmitting an incredible 141 dB SNR. The 24-bit format exceeds the capabilities of our ears and our recording equipment. It also exceeds the capabilities of all playback systems, so how much improvement can we really achieve with a 24-bit delivery format?

If our playback system were entirely noise-free, and we cranked the system up to a level that produced ear-splitting 130 dB SPL peaks, the 24-bit system could be 12 dB quieter than the noise-shaped 16-bit system. If we turned the system down by 12 dB, there would be no perceptible difference in the noise, and no perceptible improvement provided by the 24-bit word length. Remember we assumed an entirely noise-free playback system, and still we need to hit some really high playback levels before the 24-bit system offers any advantages!

Where is the Bottleneck?

The biggest bottleneck in most playback systems is the SNR of the playback equipment, not the lack of 24-bit source material. In most cases, the playback equipment will not even be capable of rendering the 118 dB perceived SNR that can be transmitted on a noise-shaped 16-bit channel.

Why do We Need 24-bit Audio?

The real advantage provided by 24-bit systems is the ability to record and produce releases that can fully utilize the SNR available in a 16-bit system. High-quality 16-bit recordings cannot be produced using a 16-bit processing chain. But a 24-bit processing chain can create 16-bit recordings that push the limits of most playback systems. There is certainly no harm in delivering a 24-bit product to the end user, but it may offer nothing more than what could have been delivered on a 16-bit format.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

Yep !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I chuck in a request for HD music on you tube I get this awful muzak..( it's not all awful some tracks are ok but it's a minority)  seems it's designed to sell hifi to gullible dopes like myself..

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.