Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?

[c1ferrari]

I'm using iTunes.

Tim

Thanks, Tim.
I apologize for the question...it originated with a post prior to #70

 

[Joe Whip]

I have not heard this particular tape but have heard one 2 channel master tape of this vintage that also sounded incredible. The same is true of a 24/96 recording before EQ. Too long ago to recall actually, other than I have noted. I have been to two recording sessions and hope to get to my third in the fall when I return from the UK to hear my son record his first album.

 

[edorr]

Exaggerated? Hardly. If you think that, then there's something wrong somewhere. It's the difference between an 2014 anorexic woman and a 1950s female pinup.

I must be blissfully tone deaf. To me the differences are marginal, and not worth chasing after. For step change improvement over 44/16 2 channel, multi channel is the ticket, but obviously little content with the exception of classical.

 

[rbbert]

Have you had the opportunity to listen to exactly the same master at 16/44.1?

Tim

It doesn't exist commercially, you'd have to "down-res" it yourself. Then if you did hear a difference someone would ascribe that to poorly executed digital processing...

 

[edorr]

It doesn't exist commercially, you'd have to "down-res" it yourself. Then if you did hear a difference someone would ascribe that to poorly executed digital processing...

Of course there will be differences. To me the question is are these difference material enough to warrant endless debate, changes in hardware, and worse of all changes in listening priorities of musical content. To me, the answer is unequivocally no, but of course others may and will see it differently.

 

[Ronm1]

Have you had the opportunity to listen to exactly the same master at 16/44.1?

Tim

May not be what you are looking for but
A number of yrs ago audio buds and I compared 192/24 Sonny Rollins WoW and SC 2ch DVDA's to various 44/16 remasters/rvg and SACD's. Clearly superior, particularly the imaging due IOO to the lower noise floor. Amazing result for an older recording. We all felt as if we were there for the first time upon hearing them

 

[Bruce B]

Same thing I did here.

PCM v DSD Comparison: 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, 64x DSD, 128x DSD

The same master tapes were transferred to different sampling rates.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes but not in awhile. I do not recall it sounding anyway near this good. However, when it comes to audio and video and many other things for that matter, memory can be very flawed. If anyone want to put together a double blind test, level matched, etc., I would love to see if I can distinguish the 2 reliably. I will say that I have heard jazz recordngs of this vintage on CD that sound superb as well. Gerry Mulligan Meets Ben Webster, which I have on a gold MoFi CD comes to mind. I have that ripped onto my computer in AIFF. I will have to compare that with the Burrell recording this weekend when I have the time. The Mulligan/Webster is sensational as well.I didn't have the Burrell recording on any format and it was on sale. It was a no brainer for me.

Audio memory can be very flawed, even over relatively short gaps, but I doubt that's the real issue. If you had the Redbook CD and upgraded to the remaster, at 24/192, or any other sampling rate, they're not the same master. It was "re-mastered" for hi-res, so they will sound different even if they're the same resolution. The simplest way to compare, if your software will do it, is change the sampling rate of your 24/192 remaster to 16/44.1, save a copy, then compare exactly the same recording at the two different sampling rates. Then of course you have re-sampled and copied, taken it down a generation and reduced the rate to 16/44.1. All good sense says there should be an audible difference, and there probably will be. But I'd bet it'll be much subtler than you expect. Maybe so subtle that in blind comparisons you'll have trouble telling which is which.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It doesn't exist commercially, you'd have to "down-res" it yourself. Then if you did hear a difference someone would ascribe that to poorly executed digital processing...

Someone probably would, but not me. I believe 24/192 should sound different from 16/44.1. But I believe the difference will be much subtler than most audiophiles conclude with their eyes open. And blind, I'm not sure you'd always pick the 24/192 at the better example...

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Someone probably would, but not me. I believe 24/192 should sound different from 16/44.1. But I believe the difference will be much subtler than most audiophiles conclude with their eyes open. And blind, I'm not sure you'd always pick the 24/192 at the better example...

Tim

Tim,

what might be helpful to the rest of us 'uninformed' and 'deluded' listeners would be for you to tell us specifically about your listening comparison between 16/44 and 192/24, and then between 16/44 and dsd and 2xdsd. tell us about the specific gear and specific music so we can all understand your 'much subtler' comments.

i realize that is not going to ever happen. but at least i had to ask.

have a nice day!

 

[MylesBAstor]

I must be blissfully tone deaf. To me the differences are marginal, and not worth chasing after. For step change improvement over 44/16 2 channel, multi channel is the ticket, but obviously little content with the exception of classical.

Well YMMV...

 

[MylesBAstor]

I have not heard this particular tape but have heard one 2 channel master tape of this vintage that also sounded incredible. The same is true of a 24/96 recording before EQ. Too long ago to recall actually, other than I have noted. I have been to two recording sessions and hope to get to my third in the fall when I return from the UK to hear my son record his first album.

I've heard a third gen of the Burrell vs. Chad's excellent 45 rpm reissue in my system and there's simply zero, none, nada contest.

 

[allvinyl]

I've heard a third gen of the Burrell vs. Chad's excellent 45 rpm reissue in my system and there's simply zero, none, nada contest.

Myles, so you are saying the 45 is better in your system than the third gen?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles, so you are saying the 45 is better in your system than the third gen?

No just the opposite. Closeness between the mediums depends on the cartridge mounted but the table is still second best. As good as the analog playback is -- and it's nothing short of sensational-- it still just doesn't come close to the sound of Burrell's guitar on tape.

 

[Joe Whip]

Audio memory can be very flawed, even over relatively short gaps, but I doubt that's the real issue. If you had the Redbook CD and upgraded to the remaster, at 24/192, or any other sampling rate, they're not the same master. It was "re-mastered" for hi-res, so they will sound different even if they're the same resolution. The simplest way to compare, if your software will do it, is change the sampling rate of your 24/192 remaster to 16/44.1, save a copy, then compare exactly the same recording at the two different sampling rates. Then of course you have re-sampled and copied, taken it down a generation and reduced the rate to 16/44.1. All good sense says there should be an audible difference, and there probably will be. But I'd bet it'll be much subtler than you expect. Maybe so subtle that in blind comparisons you'll have trouble telling which is which.

Tim

At $17.50 I am quite happy to just play the 24/192 file as is! Don't need to complicate things.

 

[Joe Whip]

I've heard a third gen of the Burrell vs. Chad's excellent 45 rpm reissue in my system and there's simply zero, none, nada contest.

I'll just have to take you word for it. The 24/192 sounds so damn good and convincing on my system, I don't see the need to chase perfection.

 

[rbbert]

It's interesting, on PCM digital converted from analog masters I can't say that I notice a difference between 24/88.2, 24/96 and 24/192. On material recorded and mastered digitally I do tend to prefer 24/192. That's probably not my final opinion, but it is so far.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Weve had that conversation, mike, and I believe my gear is listed in my profile. It represents a completely different approach than what most here have taken, a very inexpensive one compared to some, but I'm confident that it is good enough to make some observations, reach some conclusions...you know, have an opinion? That's all I've expressed here. Is that a problem?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

At $17.50 I am quite happy to just play the 24/192 file as is! Don't need to complicate things.

Then just enjoy it; that's the point anyway!

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Weve had that conversation, mike, and I believe my gear is listed in my profile. It represents a completely different approach than what most here have taken, a very inexpensive one compared to some, but I'm confident that it is good enough to make some observations, reach some conclusions...you know, have an opinion? That's all I've expressed here. Is that a problem?

not at all, enjoy the day.