Is digital hi-res 24-Bit 44.1 kHz - Stereo just a sales ploy?
Just bought this but can't really hear much of a difference from my CD?
Depeche Mode - Spirit 2017 (Deluxe) Digibook (2 CD)
https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/spirit-depeche-mode/0886446342856
Video:
Depeche Mode - Where's the Revolution (Official Video)
https://youtu.be/jsCR05oKROA?t
On a side note:
Russians love the British synth group Depeche Mode so much that on Victory Day on May 9,
they not only celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany but also "Dave Day", Dave Gahan's birthday.
When opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested five years ago, he tweeted about the Kremlin:
"It is not enough that they are plundering the country.
Now they make me miss Depeche Mode's concert in Moscow."
Rag'n'Bone Man - Human (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3wKzyIN1yk
Stay safe and healthy, best regards,
redorb
TL;DR: yes, it is just for marketing.
While high-resolution audio is important as an intermediate format in the audio production pipeline, to have more headroom, especially during volume normalization (higher bit-depth > 16 bit) or resampling (higher sample rate > 44.1 kHz), it is unnecessary as a delivery format. For that purpose, 16bit @ 44.1 kHz just is just plenty good enough. More progress for us end consumers has been made
a) in multi-channel audio for more spatial wow. This is of course mainly used in movies, but IMHO well-produced live concert productions benefit from having an immersive soundstage with music mainly coming from the front, while audience cheers all around.
b) in low-bitrate compression (e.g. OPUS codec), which increases the amount of music one can carry around in the still frequent offline scenarios. Or in the case one's music library cannot be mirrored with a Spotify subscription...
@ojdo Thanks for the input, much appreciated!
Depending on what output device I use (stream from computers soundcard)
the hi-res flac does sound a bit richer? better compared to CD to loudspeakers,
maybe some improvement in headphones as well... but I don't know?
Have to investigate and listen some more.
Best regards,
redorb
To my knowledge (and listening experience) bitdepth matters, sampling frequency not (that mutch):
(https://tomsrayaudiomastering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/bit-depth-OPT.jpg)
the hi-res flac does sound a bit richer? better compared to CD to loudspeakers,
First question: What are you comparing, and how? If you are comparing a CD with an online purchase, it could one track went through a different mastering process or came from another mix than the other. If that is the case, you aren't comparing 16-bit to 24-bit, but simply mix A to mix B. If that is the case, you yourself must judge which one you find the most pleasing. If you want to do this while making certain you remain unbiased, search this forum for 'ABX test'.
If you look at this from a theoretical point of view, the answer is pretty uncomplicated, as long as you accept the consensus in this field: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem and the basics of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
16-bit audio provides a signal to noise ratio of about 90dB. That means that if you listen to your music in a very quiet room (with a noise floor of 20 dB(A)) then you need to turn up the volume to a painful 110 dB(A) to enjoy the full range of that 16-bit audio. If you listen to your music in a more noisy environment or less loud, there is really no benefit to having 24-bit.
To my knowledge (and listening experience) bitdepth matters, sampling frequency not (that mutch):
[...]
Those graphs are a very inaccurate (if not plain wrong) portrayal of what actually happens. One cannot draw any conclusions from these graphs.
From what I have learned from reading experiments performed by people on this forum, you can discern 16bit from 24bit only under the following artificial conditions:
a) Set playback volume to extremely high levels (which would literally hurt enduring for any typical audio signal)
b) Perform an ABX-test of a very low volume signal, say a very low-volume passage in a song. Only then, when only using very few of the 16bit, something like the image posted by
@forart.eu in reply#3 becomes percievable.
As I never have and probably never will "enjoy" my music in setting a), I will not be able to discern stuff in b). For every signal that uses more of the 16 bits, the "vertical resolution" is high enough that there is virtually no benefit from higher resolutions.
To my knowledge (and listening experience) bitdepth matters, sampling frequency not (that mutch):
(https://tomsrayaudiomastering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/bit-depth-OPT.jpg)
This "stairsteps" illustration is often used to explain/justify "hi-res" audio, but it is not at all a true representation of how digital audio actually works. There are no "stairsteps" in digital audio; the illustration itself is a "sales ploy", if not outright FUD perpetuated by the industry. The statement "more information is captured - resulting in higher-quality audio" is not true for the frequencies and volume levels encountered in the recording and reproduction of music.
If you are interested in learning more about digital audio, there are some informative videos available at xiph.org:
https://xiph.org/video/
@forart.eu
@ktf
@ojde
@Apesbrain
Hmm, I get what you're saying.
Difficult listening and comparing, maybe I have "golden ears" 'cause I *think* I can hear a difference?
But what sounds better, CD or hi-res flac, I really don't know?
I also understand the master mix A and B difference.
I read somewhere, probably in here, that some hi-res remasters actually destroys the dynamics.
Found it: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=108915.0
It is fun though to get the digital hi-res flac to your music collection.
Read that here you can buy the best HD remasters. Any idea's on that?
https://www.hdtracks.com/
I often visit bandcamp.com and buy flac music that normally don't reach the broader public.
It's a good way to support musicians and bands.
https://togetherwithukraine.bandcamp.com/album/together-with-ukraine
Also I'm 68 years young and my hearing is not what it used to be.
Hmm... so maybe I have (not) "golden ears"...
The good thing about buying digital flac downloads is you won't clutter your living room with CDs or vinyl,
just the HDDs... I need more of them HDDs...
Best regards,
redorb
Edit:
@Apesbrain
Thanks for the link!
16 bit can describe a range of 96 dB.
24 bit can describe 144 dB.
There's no more discussion needed, this is well understood. If you need more than 96dB range for playback, use 24 bit.
There are no "stairsteps" in digital audio;
Well...
Digital audio sort-of
is stair stepped.... The digital data is actually a series of samples with nothing in-between. If you zoom-in in Audacity to see the individual samples you get a pretty-good graphical representation of the digital data.
But the reconstructed
analog output from a DAC is
continuous and smoothed (filtered)... Usually... I connected an oscilloscope to a soundcard once and the output (from this particular soundcard) was unfiltered and "nicely" stair-stepped!!! I was shocked, and I had never noticed anything wrong with the sound. I only used this computer for "casual" listening at work on fairly-cheap computer speakers, but I was still surprised.
But after thinking about it I realized that the harmonics are above the audio range, plus the speaker will act as a (mechanical) low-pass filter, and the amplifier might be filtering too.
I only have the CD version of Spirit. It is a loud mix and with a short spectral look i doubt there is anything to gain from higher bitrate. The high noisefloor doesn't allow anything more as 14bit of music at best imho.
But the reconstructed analog output from a DAC is continuous and smoothed (filtered)...
Exactly. When the industry puts forth that "stairstep" illustration, they are trying to cast doubt on this fact.
I just noticed another fallacy in that diagram: it illustrates 24-bit audio as having finer (smaller) gradations in amplitude units. That is incorrect. The only difference between a 16-bit and 24-bit sample is that the latter can capture a higher volume level. Think of it as having 13 ounces of beer (your 78 dB at best S/N "real-world" source) to pour into a 16-ounce or a 24-ounce glass. It makes no difference except that the 24-ounce glass takes up more space in your cupboard.
Actually, the "staircase" gets it even more completely wrong.
* Even if the original signal were staircase-shaped, your DAC wouldn't output the "steps". It will smoothen out. Your DAC is unable to deliver the staircase with fidelity above Nyquist.
This is attempted explained as the DAC will magically recreate the sine. But the point is, the DAC will lose any such stairsteps that were ever there. It isn't magical guesswork, it is loss of information. Well loss of misinformation, but still.
The vinylobullshitters could have criticized digital for not being able to output square pulses. Sure, that is a theoretical weakness - but it is practically solvable for this application: since we are dealing with human ears, we just need a format with high enough sampling rate.
Fact is, CDs fail miserably at 100 kiloherz bat sounds. Now if you want to listen to 100 kiloherz bat sounds, that is not a practical issue, they sound the same to your ears as the CD of digital silence does.
I just noticed another fallacy in that diagram: it illustrates 24-bit audio as having finer (smaller) gradations in amplitude units. That is incorrect. The only difference between a 16-bit and 24-bit sample is that the latter can capture a higher volume level.
The "raw numbers" in a 24-bit file are bigger than an 8-bit file and with integers the minimum increment (step size) is 1.
But everything is automatically scaled to match the DAC, so a 0dB 24-bit file isn't louder than a 0dB 8-bit file but the resolution is higher so
the scaled-steps are smaller. Also on a 0dB-normalized scale (like you see in Audacity) the steps are smaller.
In floating-point things get "stranger" because 1.0 is 0dB (plus you get resolution to the right of the decimal point). The way floating-point works in computers you get more resolution (smaller steps) with smaller numbers less and resolution with bigger numbers.
BTW - With an 8-bit file you can hear the steps as quantization noise even after analog filtering.
Is digital hi-res 24-Bit 44.1 kHz - Stereo just a sales ploy?
Just bought this but can't really hear much of a difference from my CD?
Yep, it's obviously marketing BS.
because standard audio CD's we have been using for decades already exceeds human hearing limits. hence, it's not realistic to improve upon for general music to any noticeable degree.
hell, another thing to put this into perspective... just given that MP3 @ V5 (130kbps) is already pretty good all-around given the listening tests around here speaks volumes as if your struggling to tell a difference between that (or MP3/AAC and the like at a sufficient bit rate) and the original audio CD, then it should be even more obvious that your not going to be able to notice a difference from one high quality source (i.e. audio CD) and another (i.e. hi-res audio and the like) since there will be a larger quality difference between say MP3 and audio CD (and even here is not all that much in the real world once the MP3 reaches a certain bit rate) then there would be between audio CD and hi-res audio which is basically nothing.
hell, I could even say this... I would say hi-res audio is more of a bad thing since it just wastes storage space with no discernible benefit, which makes it less efficient with zero improvement.
it would be difficult to take a position against (at least realistically) what I said here ;)
16 bit can describe a range of 96 dB.
24 bit can describe 144 dB.
I see these numbers a lot, but the Xiph.org video on digital audio seems to indicate that the noise floor is around -120dB when you use dither at 16 bits, rather than -96dB. Would this then indicate that the noise floor will be below -144dB if you dither at 24 bits?
Yeah, you can get down to a fraction of the least significant bit both when it is the 16th and when it is the 24th.
But the "noise floor" term isn't necessarily instructive on what is going on there at the finest detail: Suppose you have a rumbling earthquake ("noise floor") at a certain SPL, and then a slightly lower-volume high-pitched scream. You still hear both.
Informatively speaking, dither adds both signal and noise. It adds noise because ... well that's literally what it does; it adds signal because that noise reduces distortions that happen due to round-off: it will make "0.5 bits become 1 bit half the time" and that is better than consistently rounding it to 0 all the time or 1 all the time. Like the difference between these:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Dithering_example_undithered_web_palette.png) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Dithering_example_dithered_web_palette.png)
Same (not too high) "bit depth" i.e. number of bits to represent the colour of each pixel. To the left: each pixel rounded off individually. To the right: dithered. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither .
Then you got noise shaping, which are algorithms that try to accomplish the following: adding signal where you need it and adding noise where it isn't harmful.
I wouldn't doubt if most 24bit is just upscaled 16bit.
I wouldn't doubt if most 24bit is just upscaled 16bit.
Why?
Contemporary recordings? They have the files in the digital audio workstation. Want a 24 bit? Export from the DAW, rather than from the 16 bit.
Old recordings? Digitized to > 16 bits, and then digitally processed. Again, you might just as well export to 24 bits than -> 16 -> 24.
Upscaling is cheaper than pulling the tapes back out and redigitizing.
Of course, digital is just a way of archiving something and modern Instruments aren't much different from past Instruments.
But what sounds better, CD or hi-res flac, I really don't know?
It's the wrong question, CD doesn't sound like anything, hi-res doesn't sound like anything. Only the music they deliver.
I also understand the master mix A and B difference.
This is 100% of the issue. If you put the same material on CD and hi-res, you will not be able to hear the difference.
But what sounds better, CD or hi-res flac, I really don't know?
It's the wrong question, CD doesn't sound like anything, hi-res doesn't sound like anything. Only the music they deliver.
I also understand the master mix A and B difference.
This is 100% of the issue. If you put the same material on CD and hi-res, you will not be able to hear the difference.
Sorry for being vague, what I meant was when listening to "Spirit" CD and and HI-RES flac on PC from soundcard in headphones/loudspeakers using foobar, processing: apply gain, no pre-amp ±0.0db
There is of course a difference and I like the HI-RES a bit more, maybe I should rerip the CD and test different parameters?
There is of course a difference and I like the HI-RES a bit more, maybe I should rerip the CD and test different parameters?
Just convert your Hi-Res File to a 16Bit (flac) File (e.g. use foobars converter, output bit depth 16, dither allways).
Now compare the 24bit vs the converted 16bit file.
I guess you won't notice any difference at all.
Sorry for being vague, what I meant was when listening to "Spirit" CD and and HI-RES flac on PC from soundcard in headphones/loudspeakers using foobar, processing: apply gain, no pre-amp ±0.0db
There is of course a difference and I like the HI-RES a bit more, maybe I should rerip the CD and test different parameters?
Go into foobar, select both versions of one track, then right-click and go:
Utilities --> ABX Tracks... (if it's not there you might have to download the plugin from here: https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx)
Make sure "use replaygain" is checked and then continue with the test, you have to try to choose correctly which is which. If you complete the test and got less than 90% correct then you probably can't actually tell the difference.
Make sure "use replaygain" is checked...
The files need to have ReplayGain tags first:
Load files to be ABX'd > Select all > Right-click > ReplayGain > Scan as albums (by tags)
Got these results from ABX Comperator.
I hear some differences between sources,
B = 24/44.1 is somewhat "roomier" and following lyrics and text letter lingual sounds like "s" "tion" is "clearer".
I don't understand the log though, what it means, the p-value?
Thanks and best regards
redorb
foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.10
2022-04-02 15:36:03
File A: 02 Where's The Revolution.flac
SHA1: cc97f81f009efced34aeedf61fddd6f9244b622c
Gain adjustment: -9.26 dB
File B: 01-02-Depeche_Mode-Where_s_the_Revolution.flac
SHA1: 4daed7dfb96d32b735123e8f2c0de81f4287ac84
Gain adjustment: -9.27 dB
Output:
Default :
Crossfading: YES
15:36:03 : Test started.
15:48:07 : 00/01
15:59:59 : 01/02
16:13:35 : 02/03
16:24:04 : 02/04
17:32:16 : 02/05
17:42:46 : 03/06
18:04:53 : 03/07
18:27:10 : 04/08
18:27:10 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 4/8
p-value: 0.6367 (63.67%) <-- (Probability that you were guessing: )?
You chose correctly 4 out of 8. 50/50, meaning you are performing just as a cointoss would be expected to do.
p-value:
Suppose I were sitting next to you and not listening to anything, merely tossing a coin. What are the chances that I would end up with your score of 4 or better than your score of 4?
That is 63.67 percent.
I hear some differences between sources,
B = 24/44.1 is somewhat "roomier" and following lyrics and text letter lingual sounds like "s" "tion" is "clearer".
"roomier" Well that's a new one, I have not hear.
You are on Hydrogenaudio, not Stereophile :)
I hear some differences between sources,
B = 24/44.1 is somewhat "roomier" and following lyrics and text letter lingual sounds like "s" "tion" is "clearer".
"roomier" Well that's a new one, I have not hear.
You are on Hydrogenaudio, not Stereophile :)
Thanks for your input.
I do not know what the difference is?
Just tried to describe a perceived soundscape.
You chose correctly 4 out of 8. 50/50, meaning you are performing just as a cointoss would be expected to do.
p-value:
Suppose I were sitting next to you and not listening to anything, merely tossing a coin. What are the chances that I would end up with your score of 4 or better than your score of 4?
That is 63.67 percent.
Well, I guess you are right, but I don't really understand the settings of ABX comparator, I just let it run through the 8 pass test, not actively preferring one track before the other.
I don't really understand the settings of ABX comparator, I just let it run through the 8 pass test, not actively preferring one track before the other.
The "ABX" method is not about which one you "prefer" among two that are audibly different.
It is about whether you can detect any audible difference whatsoever.
Here is how it works:
(0) You have a sample "A" and a sample "B". The whole point is, can you tell the difference? You decide on N trials to test so.
(1) Software picks an "X" randomly between those: fifty-fifty chance of X=A, fifty-fifty chance of X=B.
(2) You are allowed to listen to "A", "B", and "X" as much as you like, until you are ready to "decide upon X":
(3) You select either "I think X=A" or "I think X=B". That will be either right or wrong.
(4) Repeat steps (1) through (3) another N-1 times (new X randomized every time), N in total.
You have now "guessed" N times. Or have you done better than guessing? The so-called
null hypothesis in statistics is that there is no audible (to you) difference, and there is no difference between your choices and what a coin toss would do.
We then answer the following question: "Is your result or better something a coin would be likely to produce?" That is the p value. In that experiment, there is fairly good chance a coin would "guess right" at least four out of eight.
Had you been correct 5/8, the p value would have been around .36. That means that in a competition with 9999 coins, you would end up at 3633rd place - that isn't much evidence that you can tell the difference?
A score of 10 out of 13 would put you in the top 5 percent. That is a commonly accepted (but not "universally" accepted) threshold to conclude that you are better than the coin.
If you misunderstood what listening and selecting were good for, then discard the log you produced and give it another try. Choose N=13 then?
@Porcus OK, got it! Thanks, wish there had been a guide to "how to use" ABX Comperator, and you provided one! :)
Now I need to clear my head from the song before I do a new test, I'll get back to you later.
Best regards,
redorb
Found this when trying to figure out the ABX.
Funny!
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/abx-you-really-need-to-do-it-to-understand.7426/#:~:text=Some%20people%20do,all%20be%20different.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/abx-you-really-need-to-do-it-to-understand.7426/#:~:text=In%20fact%20you%20can%20do%20a%20reasonable%20job%20with%20a%20large%20curtain%20and%20a%20bit%20of%20help%20(no%2C%20not%20the%20wife).
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
Well, I do "upsample" - on the fly - all music audio that I listen in my system @ 4x/8x DSD.
Does this perform "sonically" better ?
I honestly don't know but, for what I have understood about DACs (including my Topping E50), modern converters/filters works better at their "native" resolution.
Anyway I do always choose 24 bit depth when I do record audio performances.
Well, I do "upsample" - on the fly - all music audio that I listen in my system @ 4x/8x DSD.
Does this perform "sonically" better ?
I honestly don't know but, for what I have understood about DACs (including my Topping E50), modern converters/filters works better at their "native" resolution.
Not true.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/octave-music-don-grusin-high-resolution-music-analysis-video.31620/post-1138796
Well, I do "upsample" - on the fly - all music audio that I listen in my system @ 4x/8x DSD.
Does this perform "sonically" better ?
I honestly don't know but, for what I have understood about DACs (including my Topping E50), modern converters/filters works better at their "native" resolution.
Not true.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/octave-music-don-grusin-high-resolution-music-analysis-video.31620/post-1138796
If you carefully read those 3ads, it's debated (afaik shouln't make difference or little... ...and engineering matters:
"It's simply the Pro-Ject is unable to adequately utilize the PCM potential of the ESS chips, which clearly lags behind the Topping D10B in Amir's reviews.").
BTW this 3ad is about audio resolution and yes, I do strongly prefer NATIVE 24bits depth over 16 (at least in recording phase).
PCM or DSD ?
I never used a DSD-capable multitrack recorder, so - at the moment - I do use 24bit PCM ADCs
If you carefully read those 3ads, it's debated (afaik shouln't make difference or little... ...and engineering matters: "It's simply the Pro-Ject is unable to adequately utilize the PCM potential of the ESS chips, which clearly lags behind the Topping D10B in Amir's reviews."
If you
really carefully read the thread, this sentence was actually written by me in this post (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-you-need-linear-power-supply-for-dacs.7021/post-955198), in the context that the Project was too noisy so that it can't really reveal the elevated noise floor of DSD when compared to PCM in the audio band (below 20kHz). Also read
carefully that I did not quote your text about recording because that was not what I wanted to reply.
I hear some differences between sources,
B = 24/44.1 is somewhat "roomier" and following lyrics and text letter lingual sounds like "s" "tion" is "clearer".
"roomier" Well that's a new one, I have not hear.
You are on Hydrogenaudio, not Stereophile :)
Thanks for your input.
I do not know what the difference is?
Just tried to describe a perceived soundscape.
Claiming to hear a difference wihout ABX is illegal in here. Like actually its in the rules lol.
Claiming to hear a difference wihout ABX is illegal in here. Like actually its in the rules lol.
Thanks for your input.
Really? Is that your contribution to this thread?
Claiming to hear a difference wihout ABX is illegal in here. Like actually its in the rules lol.
Thanks for your input.
Really? Is that your contribution to this thread?
It's true though. Terms of Service #8: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=3974#post_tos8
To quote part of this rule
This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.
To quote part of this rule
This rule is the very core of Hydrogen audio, so it is very important that you follow it.
OK, I will follow that rule, will try to edit out my earlier "perceived" text...
Sorry, but edit is not possible... apologies... you live and you learn, hopefully?
Sorry, but edit is not possible...
Not after an hour or so.
you live and you learn, hopefully?
Yeah, so ... no harm done.
The reason for the focus on
blind testing for difference or not is how human hearing ("hearing" -> the process in the brain) is easily tricked by other senses. When we think that this sounds better than that, it is often not due to sound, but to mixing up with other senses: we often hear what we expect to hear, regardless of whether it is actually in the sound. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect and the two videos linked to at the end.
Exactly, it's just like when you enjoyed a good red wine, in nice company,
in a small wonderful restaurant in a small village in Italy and when you got home, bought the exact same wine and ...
Or you saw a warm and romantic movie with the one you love and want to see it again a few years later, and ...
Things change over time, I'm still a warm and romantic person, aged with dignity, just like my stereo...
My setup is not a High-End setup and quite old... just like me, but it shure sounds perfect in my ears... warm and romantic...
I've been taking care of it like if it was my baby and, it is my baby, never gonna let go of it.
Still have all the original boxes safely tucked away.
NAD 2155 Stereo Power Amplifier (renovated, new soldering)
NAD 3155 Stereo Integrated Amplifier (bridge to 2155) (renovated, new potentiometer, new soldering)
NAD 4225 Stereo AM/FM Tuner
DENON DP-72L Turntable (Denon DL-103R Moving Coil cartridge)
DENON DCD 1500 CD-player
BOSTON A-400 (Walnut) (replaced surrounds foam, new cones on tweeters, new soldering,
walnut wood finely sanded and varnished with high gloss hard boat varnish 5 layers,
matted down with #00000 pro grade steel wool, got that matt soft deep shimmer to it)
AKG K872 Headphones
Cables No fancy or insanely expensive ones, for speakers 4 mm2 oxygen-free OFC copper, AudioQuest RCA.
walnut wood finely sanded and varnished with high gloss hard boat varnish 5 layers,
matted down with #00000 pro grade steel wool, got that matt soft deep shimmer to it)
Celebrate the wonders of placebo! :-)
Well seriously, appearance
does fool you. That is just human nature. And marketing sharks know: Here was a famous story from a few years ago, when somebody
* disassembled a pair of Beats by Dr. Dre headphones, and found out that they had added metal parts in "useless" places to gain weight (the "heavier" feel is generally perceived as quality)
* found out then that they had bought a counterfeit pair
* ... and got the real thing, disassembled that, and found out that indeed the counterfeits had copied that particular "feature" from the real ones.
https://beneinstein.medium.com/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our-beats-were-counterfeit-but-they-cost-about-the-same-to-make-as-the-364cc6808d18
Now ... your AKGs are probably way into the law of diminishing returns.
I know! They fit nicely on my head and ears though, but the price is ridiculous!
Let's not get into how they sound... ;D
Lucky for me I got them as a birthday present.
I also have two pairs of AKG K272 which I bought many years ago.
At computer I've run over the cables with the office chair a few times... haha.
I bought the exactly same spare cables from Thomann, easy to solder back yourself.
Claiming to hear a difference wihout ABX is illegal in here. Like actually its in the rules lol.
Thanks for your input.
Really? Is that your contribution to this thread?
You are very welcome.
(https://i.imgur.com/iC2r1zc.png)
I did a lot of ABX tests with different sources.
My own CDs to .wav and bought albums/songs with FLAC 24bit/44kHz - 24bit/48kHz - 24bit/192kHz
I won't go into what they sound like...
The ABX results are somewhat confusing and I won't go into that either...
Peace, over and out...
(https://i.imgur.com/MriynFB.jpg)
Brei
(https://www.seekpng.com/png/full/41-415952_homer-simpson-drooling-food.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kCNS0yW.gif)
What the hell is going on in this topic?
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with 'Kartoffelbrei'
What the hell is going on in this topic?
So sorry, feel free to edit out the drift from topic, if I could I would.
Best regards
16 bit can describe a range of 96 dB.
24 bit can describe 144 dB.
There's no more discussion needed, this is well understood. If you need more than 96dB range for playback, use 24 bit.
Actually, no. Otherwise DSD would only be able describe a range of 6 dB.
WIth 16 bits one can have effectively 120 Db of dynamic range for instance with dithering (which is a form of noise shaping).