Hey guys,
I am not sure I can hear the difference in High Resolution recordings compared to normal CDs. I "think" I can some times. I can hear that MP3 sucks. And that I at least need CD quality, 16 bit 44.1 kHz. I have some recordings at 24 bit that sound pretty good, tempting to think they sound better. 24/192 sounds great, I some times think these sounds smoother, sweeter, fuller, more musical/less digital?????
Of course those of you who follow along with my adventures in music know I love blu-rays and even blu ray audio, even above my beloved SACDs and DVD-Audio discs. These are all High resolution and sound really great.
Now days, playing with my new toy, the Cowon Plenue M2 digital audio player, with my new custom in ear monitors, (this is my only way to play music files unless I plug that bad boy into my XMC-1 and listen to the files on the DAP) I find that it can play DSD (DSX) files of at least 64 and 128 fs recordings. A couple even came free already loaded on the Cowon, and sound wonderful.
So, I searched online and joined HD TRacks but have not been happy with it at all, and NativeDSD Music where I found and downloaded (paying a pretty price too I might add) the full version of Britten's "War Requiem" and a few other albums. A couple are binaural recordings which I thought might be great listening as I do with in ear monitors.
I am just in early days listening to them, barely all the way through yet. The sound is remarkable, the resolution is great, of course. But being music that I walk to, outside the house, and this is all classical music, the dynamic range of this music makes it really hard to hear very soft passages on the road. So it is a little hard to appreciate sometimes.
And most all the music I have found on DSD has been classical music, not exactly rock and roll, or the kind of music I normally like to exercise to.
Just wondering what you guys' experiences in HiRez have been?
Those of you who can hear the difference in power cables should REALLY hear some differences here.
Discussion???? Suggestions, recommendations??????
God Bless,
Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I've been experimenting with hi res. I have downloaded some 96/24 flac files from HDTracks. I use my Oppo player to pull them off an external hard drive, and the Oppo passes the digital to my Auralic Vega DAC. So far, I can't say for sure I'm able to hear much of a difference between 16/44 and higher res, but my ears are 68 years old. But I'm still evaluating.

I did discover an annoying thing. My Oppo player won't send DSD from a SACD disk to coax. It downsamples to 48 kHz first because of copyright issues. Same thing with Blu Ray audio. Even when I select 192/24 on the Blu Ray audio interface, it downsamples to 48 kHz. So the only way I can hear DSD or Blu Ray audio at hi res is to use the Oppo analog outputs or have hi res files onboard my external drive.

Charlie

Thanks Charlie, I believe you and I are in pretty much the same boat, including the 68 year old ears, mine are nearly 69.
I was hoping some of the young bucks who can still hear might chime in here. ha ha
Yeah, Sony and their buddies really did a number on the copy protection all across the board, with DSD, ISO and HDMI. Wish we could get out from under their thumbs.
If you come across any really great music in Hi Res where you can really hear an audible difference (improvement that is!!) please let me know.
Thanks and God Bless,
Wayne

Hi Wayne.

I'll stand by what I have posted previously in this and other forums that I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio in a blind test. In fact I do not believe there are any documented cases at all.

That said, I do find myself leaning toward 24 bit as a preferred source. The primary reason is that digital theory would dictate that 24 bit is superior to 16 bit, and for that matter the higher the sample rate, also the better. As we keep stepping up the ladder with audio, the point of diminishing returns eventually makes it way into the scheme of things. And then, people including myself tend to chase one tweak after another, each one of which is very subtle (or should be if your system is already rather resolving) at best. So I chalk off the 24 bit versus 16 as another subtle tweak that even though you may not or cannot hear a difference, science prevails so it begs the question, why not listen to 24 instead of 16, if you have the choice?

One downside I can think of is that the disk file size is usually about three times larger than 16 bit audio. And somewhere along the line that translates into higher cost.

One of the advantages I am enjoying as the result of playing all of my music from FLAC files stored on an external HD is the ability to download High-Res files and to create them myself when I convert LPs to FLAC. I agree that the differences may be subtle and hearing them probably depends upon the quality of the playback devices. I believe that I can tell the difference.

Yes, the cost is higher to download a high-res file. I am personally puzzled that, frequently, CDs can be purchased at less cost than downloading the same recordings. I suspect that at some point, that situation will change.

Best,

Art

I think there is a reason why most people can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. I measured the noise floor in my listening room (not with the best meter, for sure) and got between 35 and 40 dB. When I'm listening to orchestral music, my maximum comfort level is around 86 dB, with rare excursions to 90 or so. (I used the same meter to measure a peak at a live orchestral performance of about 86 dB.) So, my signal to noise ratio is 90 – 35 = 55 dB. Compare that to the 16 bit dynamic range of 96 dB, and you can see that 16 bits - assuming they are all used effectively - covers the range. Even with a couple of bits of empty headroom, you still get a remaining dynamic range of 84 dB. So the room becomes the limiting factor, not the 16 bits.

I do have 16 bit and 24 bit copies of one recording and found I could hear a difference in the music decay noise floor of the recording, but only if I turned up the volume to what would have been system destroying volume. This fits with the above.

On sample rate, my DAC has a slow rolloff reconstruction filter that I prefer, and, when processing 44 kHz data, it causes a drop in frequency response (with phase disturbance, no doubt) above 16 kHz (which I can't hear anyway). If I feed it 96 kHz data, it shifts up the corner frequency, making the upper audible pass band flatter. So those young folks with bat ears might be able to hear a difference in the 16 to 20 kHz region.

Bottom line seems to be that 16/44 is adequate for most people, and the advantage of 24/96 is probably only experienced by a few.

Charlie