I have a Denon mini separates system with Monitor Audio speakers, decent bi-wire cables, loads of other tweaks...........

 

I usually play CD's or play them from the separate hard-drive that I have plugged into the network player part of the Hi-Fi. I usually use dbpoweramp to professionally rip my CD's to the hard-drive as FLAC.

 

Anyway I like all sorts of music, but really like well recorded stuff, so, Naim, Linn, Blue Note, Sheffield Labs, .....you get the picture.

 

So Naim have released a full Studio Master in 24bit 192kHz of a favorit of mine, (Meat Me in London by Antonio Forcione & Sabina Scuibba). So downloaded it in FLAC & played it on the system & did a back to back with my CD & ripped version on the hard-drive. CD & ripped version....same (of course)..........

 

But comparing either to the Studio Master...........................  ...WOW..................!!!!!............really F me!!!!!

 

I though someone had turned the bass up, I could hear the double bass more, the vocals were less "shrill", more positioning of the people etc...............on a really big very expensive system in a big room it must be mind blowing..........

 

Anyway really happy I am now getting more of these downloads as & when they release them...................Now this format will beat virgin heavy vinyl on an expensive system...............

Whereabouts can these uber versions be obtained from?

Naim & Linn do them on their website, pay via credit card & download direct...........takes a while though..........

 

Linky to the Naim one I mentioned............

 

http://www.naimlabel.com/recording-meet-me-in-london-192.aspx

 

P.S. they have NO DRM!!....................in fact Naim & Linn make a point of not using DRM....read it on their websites.................

To be honest I think most of the difference comes from the mastering. You might want to have a look at the Hoffman forums, they discuss in minute detail different masterings.

If you use the Tunein app, you can get Linn Radio in a few different flavours. Might be of interest to you.

Doesn't it depend on the digital to analogue conversion being upto it as well, I guess the average CD player will be 16bit 128kbp/s 44.1 sampling rate, but with your hard drive it will have a better dac chip..

Either way it will always sound streets ahead of mp3 files.

Doesn't it depend on the digital to analogue conversion being upto it as well, I guess the average CD player will be 16bit 128kbp/s 44.1 sampling rate, but with your hard drive it will have a better dac chip..

Either way it will always sound streets ahead of mp3 files.

 

Honestly? I'm not sure. I think there's a point that the compression becomes all but un-noticeable, but the key difference is the mastering. A well mastered CD will still sound great at 320, a duff one will still be duff at any resolution. I would be very surprised if anyone could discern the difference between a so called hi-res recording and a standard one. They will certainly though be able to tell the difference between a bad master of the same recording and a good one. There's also the fact to bear in mind that a lot of hi-res is simply up sampled. There's no more original material on there than there is on the original. It's like my DVD adding extra lines itself to pretend to be a 1080 source. I'd also question what extra information there is after the upsampling, and also how you could detect the so called extra resolution. I remember the HDCD discs. Even bought a player, then noticed that the same discs that sounded great when the HDCD light came on, also sounded great if I took them to a mates house who didn't have the extra decoding. Lesson learnt, it's mastering that counts.

 

Have a good look round this place, most of them have forgotten more than I know:

www.forums.stevehoffman.tv 

Edited 18 October, 201411 yr by lordsummit

It's something I'm already very familiar with, I work with massive public address systems as part of my job.

I think you are definitely right though, the vast overwhelming majority of music now is mixed down and mastered with the sole intention that the listener is using an iPod or phone or whatever and is listening through tiny bud earphones, so the LF is boosted and the HF is cut away then you have the whole atrac thing applied to it as well assuming it's not a lossless format which results in an odd sounding track when played through near fields. I swear by my akg k712 headphones which I use all the time for setting up parametric eq's for live theatre work but the odd thing is I find that listening to music for pleasure through them does my head in and I prefer the Breyer dynamic dt's for that.

The other thing that really irritates me us the heavy dynamics processing applied to modern tracks which they use to normalise the volume, everything gets compressed to within an inch of it's life

the standard sampling rate they use for multitrack recordings at the studio will be 48khz, anything beyond that gets past the range of human perception, naturally this is interpolated when it's resampled for cd format (44.1) so you do loose some fidelity, some CD players use an extra bit for oversampling too which halves the interpolation at the point put through the DAC but not all CDs are encoded with it.

I think you are right however, I think it's not possible to tell the difference in sampling rate. Up scaling it just uses more hard disc drive space, nothing more.

I think music technology peaked when the wax cylinder came out.

 

Everything since then has been lipstick on a pig.

Edited 18 October, 201411 yr by GentleGiant

Was an interesting read about how they remaster it.

To be honest I think most of the difference comes from the mastering. You might want to have a look at the Hoffman forums, they discuss in minute detail different masterings.

 

In the case of the album I mentioned in my OP yes they had to re-master the original Studio tapes, but both Linn & Naim offer up to 24 bit 96kHz recordings of original records using the Studio Master tapes for certain albums without re--mastering! I have listened to these & there is a major difference!

 

Doesn't it depend on the digital to analogue conversion being upto it as well, I guess the average CD player will be 16bit 128kbp/s 44.1 sampling rate, but with your hard drive it will have a better dac chip..

 

 

In my OP I stated that I was comparing a perfect ripped CD saved as FLAC on my hard-drive along with the download FLAC at 24 bit 192kHZ on the same hard-drive. So both versions are then played from the same hard-drive & through the same Network player & DAC! Perfect comparison!

 

Honestly? I'm not sure. I think there's a point that the compression becomes all but un-noticeable, but the key difference is the mastering. A well mastered CD will still sound great at 320, a duff one will still be duff at any resolution. I would be very surprised if anyone could discern the difference between a so called hi-res recording and a standard one. They will certainly though be able to tell the difference between a bad master of the same recording and a good one. There's also the fact to bear in mind that a lot of hi-res is simply up sampled. There's no more original material on there than there is on the original. It's like my DVD adding extra lines itself to pretend to be a 1080 source. I'd also question what extra information there is after the upsampling, and also how you could detect the so called extra resolution. I remember the HDCD discs. Even bought a player, then noticed that the same discs that sounded great when the HDCD light came on, also sounded great if I took them to a mates house who didn't have the extra decoding. Lesson learnt, it's mastering that counts.

 

 

 

You didn't notice my OP did you?..........  ....I am talking about the best producers/recorders of CD's........not general trash!!!! It has been known for ages that a well produced/recorded & pressed LP in heavy vinyl say "Harry James the King James Version" by Sheffield labs recorded "direct to Disc" (go google that) has always sounded better than a CD when played on the same system! Most of my decent cd's (Linn/Naim/Columbia/Legacy/Blue Note/Sheffield Labs) are "down sampled" from 20 bit or 24 bit master tapes to the poor quality that is CD at 16 bit! I have read reports were even groups such as Duran Duran say that their Studio tapes sound way better than the cd's! A good quality studio tape does record more sound/information

 

It's something I'm already very familiar with, I work with massive public address systems as part of my job.

I think you are definitely right though, the vast overwhelming majority of music now is mixed down and mastered with the sole intention that the listener is using an iPod or phone or whatever and is listening through tiny bud earphones, so the LF is boosted and the HF is cut away then you have the whole atrac thing applied to it as well assuming it's not a lossless format which results in an odd sounding track when played through near fields.

The other thing that really irritates me us the heavy dynamics processing applied to modern tracks which they use to normalise the volume, everything gets compressed to within an inch of it's life

the standard sampling rate they use for multitrack recordings at the studio will be 48khz, anything beyond that gets past the range of human perception, naturally this is interpolated when it's resampled for cd format (44.1) so you do loose some fidelity, some CD players use an extra bit for oversampling too which halves the interpolation at the point put through the DAC but not all CDs are encoded with it.

I think you are right however, I think it's not possible to tell the difference in sampling rate. Up scaling it just uses more hard disc drive space, nothing more.

 

Again I am talking about decent recordings not general "trash" ..............................so the original studio tapes are better produced...........I have heard the difference between various bit/sample rate recordings from the same master tapes......everyone's hearing is slightly different. I can still hear those stupid cat scarers which you are not supposed to hear after the age of 25 as your hearing goes..........well I'm 40 & have sensitive hearing which is "trained".............  

 

I suggest that a few of you people try direct comparisons by downloading various version (bit/sample rate) of the same tracks & play them through the same DAC................if you have the Hi-Fi to do so that is.......................

everyone's hearing is slightly different. I can still hear those stupid cat scarers which you are not supposed to hear after the age of 25 as your hearing goes..........well I'm 40 & have sensitive hearing which is "trained".............  

 

 

................if you have the Hi-Fi to do so that is.......................

 

i'd be the first to admit my hearing is not as good as it used to be, too much exposure to high sound pressure levels I fear

 

 

home hifi is all about home-made valve amplifiers for me, obviously it's not going to be nearly as good as the linear response you get from decent class D mosfet amplifier but it still sounds ok.. it' getting hard to find audio grade EL34's now too unless you want Chinese copies

I use FLAC with very little compression. Most of my CD collection is now converted. The thinking is I can them convert to MP3 as required fairly easily without having to rummage through a load of discs. I've also tried 24bit recordings essentially SACD quality, which are superb. Various tests have been carried out with MP3 recordings and there is a point when the human ear can't tell the difference. Though comparing with the original I do believe you loose depth and clarity, imo. I can hear the difference between a well mastered CD and a poor one usually the volume levels are variable and there is an imbalance in the frequencys bass is lost and so are the vocals to a degree though it does depend on the individual recording.

 

If you are listening through some cheap buds on an mp3 player you are very unlikely to hear the differences, on a good quality setup they stand out. As an aside my interest in hifi and music started as a student my now wife couldn't understand what the fuss was about "they all sound the same" though soon she could hear differences in various setups as I upgraded.

 

Most recently I bought some beyerdynamic buds to replace some seinnheiser's, the difference was night and day, swmbo nabbed them and haven't seen them since.

 

My system is more geared to home theatre and I've finally got a sound I'm so pleased with. For techies I've the following 6.1 setup Monitor Audio Radius 225's fronts, 250 centre, 180 rear centre, 90's rear surround (brilliant speakers and lounge friendly) BK electronics XXL400 Sub (mega british built, neighbours love it) Pioneer SCLX 57 AV Reciever (ipad control app is awesome)Sony BDP790 blu ray player.

 

Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 converts 24bit recordings and an Ipad control app. Western digital Hard Drive 6TB Raid 1 configured. Lastly some Seinheiser RS220 cordless cans.

 

Home cinema systems are always a compromise with purist stereo sound, though happy that mine kicks ass when needed.   

 

I used to use winged Svetlanas. Very nice sounding. Gave up on valves when we had kids. Too much chance of a hand to valve interface being formed. My favourite was an EL84 Manley Amp paired with some Klipsch Heresys.

I have heard 24/96 through some very good systems, I'm personally certain after that experience that what you're hearing is the fact that your recordings are beautifully mastered.

You can hear the same if you compare a MFSL and a recent issue of an album. Have you looked at the Hoffman forums. They are really interesting and will point you in the right direction to find the best sounding issues of any album.

Maybe I'm just older and more cynical, I've seen the latest fad due out too many times.

So what should I rip all my CDs at? So far done the majority at 320 mp3 but they're mahoosive files

I ripped all mine in Apple lossless. Spotify is the equivalent of 320. Below that I think you can start to hear the difference. My library is 560gb

So what should I rip all my CDs at? So far done the majority at 320 mp3 but they're mahoosive files

 

A CD holds about 700mb of data........so a proper rip should be the same...if the whole of the CD is full of data.....

 

I rip mine as full FLAC using dBpoweramp........................big files but drives are cheap!........................Rip once rip perfect!

That's my thoughts, but loading up the phone with stuff for a holiday is limited at full size, and I don't want to have to convert everytime

Easy...........I rip perfect as FLAC in dBpoweramp & save on master external hard-drive.....then use dBpoweramp converter to convert a copy to mp3 Lame at 320 & save on internal drive on computer......then copy across the tracks I want onto my iPad mini if traveling................mind you it has 64gb of storage!..............

 

So I have one full copy as FLAC & full copy as mp3 Lame................

Personally I would say that the studio masters that I have purchased, do definitely sound better than the equivalent CD, now be that because there is extra information in the recording including frequencies that can't be heard, or because more care is taken in creating the Hi-Def recording from the studio masters - I don't care. IMHO the Hi-Def masters that I have bought sound better and are worth the cost.

 

I had an Alpine install in my old A3 that was capable of playing Hi-Def from DVD-A and it was well worth the effort and expense to install it.

 

Interestingly the Columbus Sat Nav will play DVD-A discs.

Easy...........I rip perfect as FLAC in dBpoweramp & save on master external hard-drive.....then use dBpoweramp converter to convert a copy to mp3 Lame at 320 & save on internal drive on computer......then copy across the tracks I want onto my iPad mini if traveling................mind you it has 64gb of storage!..............

 

So I have one full copy as FLAC & full copy as mp3 Lame................

 

+1, As above,.. then you will always have a master copy, RAID configure the hard drive/s then if it fails you have a back up copy and don't have to go through the hassle of ripping again.

I haven't bothered with hi-res music files but everything is burned to Apple lossless and replayed via a Mac Mini with Pure Music and a Weiss Dac202 - general consensus is that the difference between 16 & 24 bit is minimal.

Doesn't it depend on the digital to analogue conversion being upto it as well, I guess the average CD player will be 16bit 128kbp/s 44.1 sampling rate, but with your hard drive it will have a better dac chip..

Either way it will always sound streets ahead of mp3 files.

 

Audio CDs are not 128kbps, they are linear PCM so uncompressed. The Audio CD specification states  2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz. The actual 44100Hz is the important bit, 128Kbps is not relevant to audio CDS.

I haven't bothered with hi-res music files but everything is burned to Apple lossless and replayed via a Mac Mini with Pure Music and a Weiss Dac202 - general consensus is that the difference between 16 & 24 bit is minimal.

This. The longer I've played this game the more I realise that the source recording is key, along with matching your speakers to the room, setting them up correctly, and if you use a sub like I do setting it up. After that amps don't sound that different if they measure well and have decent current delivery. I'd also question whether DACs should really sound different, if time alignment and jitter is correctly managed. Certainly I was unable to discern any real difference between a Rega, Audiolab, Cambridge and my Airport Express.

But back to sources I have no doubt that the quality of the mastering of the material is what is making the difference. I've heard Hi-res compared on Quad electrostatics, and of any speaker should show the difference they should. They didn't.

Found this today and thought of this thread. Not my words but those of a recording engineer of my acquaintance. Very interesting reading.

So what's the difference on back to back play back 24 v 16

A basic description would be a wider stereo image which means instruments are further apart than on a 16bit recording such as the new album from Wilco. This in turn makes it easier to pick out the finer detail that makes up the recording. If you play 24bit recordings for a good few hours then switch to 16bit recordings then you hear the difference substantially.

Essentially the bit depth controls the maximum difference between the quietest signal and the loudest signal you can record, In other words dynamic range. The theoretical dynamic range of 16 bit is 96dB while 24 bit gives us 144 dB.

In a recording studio environment 24 bit gives very good flexibility in setting recording levels without having to worry about the possibility of exceeding the recording equipments maximum limit or clipping. It also gives us the ability to adjust the mix-down levels and normalize all the inputs from different recording takes when producing the final stereo mix from a multi track master without aproaching the maximum and minimum digital limits.

On the other hand once the stereo mix is finalised and locked down, the 144 dB signal-to-noise ratio offered by 24bit seems a little wasted especially since the very best pre-amps on offer struggle to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio of 120db while 90 dB seems to be the average for most high end domestic kit.

For domestic use 16bit is all that is realistically needed. I have also heard 24 bit recordings appearing to sound a little better than the down-converted 16 bit versions but you need to be careful when directly comparing 24 bit and 16 bit recordings. Many of the criticisms levelled at 16 bit recordings are the result of errors from poor down-sampling techniques used when converting from 24 bit stereo masters.