Have your say & ask the experts!

Any need for high sampling rates?

11 replies [Last post]
SteveR750's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 3096
__________________

JRiver MC17 -> Cambridge Audio DACmagic+ -> Roksan Caspian M2 -> ProAc D18 

parish_chap's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Posts: 20
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

I stumbled across the first of those articles and was going to ask the same question here. Shame that there have been no replies as I would be interested in hearing others oppinions/views.

 

Overdose's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 3136
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

Having directly compared high resolution files with CD standard, I can detect no discernable difference. My guess is that some higher resolution recordings are simply better masters/remasters, which would account for any detected differences.

I used 24/96 recordings and compressed them to 16/44.1, so that the bit depth and sample rate could be tested in isolation.

Some people think that they can hear differences, but luckily for me 256Kbps ripped at a variable bit rate is indistinguishable from lossless files and in fact, the  original CDs. Saves me a fortune and I just get on with listening to the music.

Currently, Lucas Renney - Strange Glory and Alice Gold - Seven Rainbows.

__________________

Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 3096
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

I agree there is more variation in SQ in recorded music period to warrant Hi Res a bit of an occasional indulgence for a good remaster (Fleetwood Mac Rumours being a great example). I've got one 24/192 album and it's only OK. I've got "better" sounding 16/44, it's all down to the original production and mastering quality.

__________________

JRiver MC17 -> Cambridge Audio DACmagic+ -> Roksan Caspian M2 -> ProAc D18 

DavieCee's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 490
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

I also go along with the opinion that is the remastering that is more important than the bit rate.

Garbage in, garbage out and all that.....

That said, if you have a quality master then I would rather have the HD track than not, in the same way as I would rather have speakers that operate outside my hearing range than not.

Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 2875
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

DavieCee wrote:

I also go along with the opinion that is the remastering that is more important than the bit rate.

Garbage in, garbage out and all that.....

That said, if you have a quality master then I would rather have the HD track than not, in the same way as I would rather have speakers that operate outside my hearing range than not.

Yes, I subscribe to this view.  The higher bit depth and sampling rate is unnecessary, but the better remaster is welcome.

__________________

Synology NAS + ATV2 > ADM9RS

shooter's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 May 2008
Posts: 2670
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

I dont these articles are about mastering and production, there more about equipment compatability and the pitfalls of playing hi-res material on equipment not designed with that in mind.

There seems to be a correlation between hi-res digital playback and vinyl, the same principles apply.

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 3126
RE: I wouldn’t say hi-res offers

I wouldn’t say hi-res offers no audible benefit itself, because I like to remain open-minded. However I also believe the biggest benefit comes from the fact that creating a 24/96 or 24/192 master forces the record companies to go back to the analogue master-tape and recapture it.

Many classic albums have been ostensibly remastered since their first release on CD, but despite what engineers may tell you, the term 'remastering' is applied to more than one specific process, which can lead to confusion (I'll stop short of saying 'deception').

What we (audiophiles) want it to mean is that the engineers have carefully extracted the earliest available analogue master from the dehumidified and air-conditioned vaults, sympathetically recaptured it using the best tape-decks, desks and AD converters known to man, performed digital repairs only where strictly necessary, and sent it out to the pressing-plant for re-issue in all its dynamic glory.

Unfortunately, that's not necessarily the case. A classic release could be given a nice 'remastered' sticker on the front of its CD case even if all the engineer has done is dig-up the ancient digital capture from 1982, re-EQ it, pass it through a NR filter, add some 21st-century-style compression/brick-wall limiting, then push it out for re-issue. 

I like the fact that hi-res re-masters are more likely to have been created by the former process, or at least something close to it. Also, based on the few hi-res albums I have heard, hi-res remasters seem less likely to have been dynamically crucified, but I could just have been lucky with that one.

__________________

Main system: Mac Mini 2011 • HRT II+ DAC • Lacie 3TB Cloudbox NAS • Marantz PM66 KI • EB Acoustics EB2

In storage: Thorens TD160 (no cart) • Cyrus 2 + PSX • Cyrus tuner • Technics SL-P777 • Marantz CD63KIS • Nakamichi DR-1

bendrummond's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Nov 2008
Posts: 99
RE: I wouldn’t say hi-res offers

...a bit of a long read Smile

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full@MajorFubar

Some very good points raised about compression and A->D transfer. I always take note when people talk about Studer 820 reel to reels being used for the analogue transfer part etc.

The other thing to note about many of the SaCD/DVD-a releases is that because the original multi-track tapes were used to be able to make new multi-channel mixes, this invariably also meant creating a new remixed two channel master at the same time using more modern mixing techniques resulting in a higher quality release (eg Fleetwood Mac Rumours/Eagles Hotel California)

shooter's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 May 2008
Posts: 2670
RE: I wouldn’t say hi-res offers

MajorFubar wrote:

 hi-res remasters seem less likely to have been dynamically crucified

 

Yep, those and vinyl of current releases in general are better in that respect also 80's CD's are also good dynamically.

There are exception but in general new CD's are very poor in that respect, and from a format that can handle greater dynamics than any other.

Its a poor state of affairs that you have to pay a premium for uncompressed musical quality these days.

Alantiggger's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 1584
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

From that first link : 

 

"The number one comment I heard from believers in super high rate audio was [paraphrasing]: "I've listened to high rate audio myself and the improvement is obvious. Are you seriously telling me not to trust my own ears?"

"Of course you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible.

I don't mean that flippantly; as human beings, we're all wired that way."           good job

__________________

Lounge :  Samsung PS51E6500, Sony BDP S790, Virgin media XL with HD Sports Channels (BT &Sky),  Yamaha RX-V673.

Tannoy Arena 5.1 with stands.(http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/tannoy-arena-96472/review)

Bedroom: Panasonic PX70 TV and a Sony BDP-370 Blu ray Player & Kitsound Boomdock.  (quite superb for sound)

So far  :)

 

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 3126
RE: Any need for high sampling rates?

Nice try but i'm sure the mods will remove your sneakily-inserted link which I'm sure has absolutely nothing to do with audio-recording and A/D D/A conversion

__________________

Main system: Mac Mini 2011 • HRT II+ DAC • Lacie 3TB Cloudbox NAS • Marantz PM66 KI • EB Acoustics EB2

In storage: Thorens TD160 (no cart) • Cyrus 2 + PSX • Cyrus tuner • Technics SL-P777 • Marantz CD63KIS • Nakamichi DR-1