Which sounds better - 24/192 or 32/192? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 08:54 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
southleft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
We have our CD collection ripped to a hard drive in 16/44 .wav format and it works fine. With access to larger hard drives we now want to re-rip for better sound quality. Has anyone here listened extensively to 24/192 vs. 32/192 ? Is it worth ripping in 32/192? Thanks for your thoughts on this.
southleft is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stanton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
You sort of answered your own question. CD's (Redbook) are by definition 16/44, so ripping them to anything else is overkill (or a waste of time). If you started with a higher resolution source, then you can talk about storing in a higher resolution format.

Yamaha DSP-A1 Integrated Amp
(4) Polk Monitor 10B's w/SoniCaps and Mills resistors (R/L F/R)
(2) Polk Monitor 4's w/peerless tweets (dual centers)
B&O TX2 Turntable
Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1
Pioneer CLD-99 Elite LD
Samsung BD-P2550 Blu-Ray/DVD
Princeton AF3.0HD Monitor
Optoma HD65 Projector
Stanton is offline  
post #3 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 10:27 AM
Member
 
mjd420nova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Re-rip?? What's the original media?? Further compression schemes cannot replace or reproduce elements that were eliminated during the first conversion to digital. Increasing the bit sample 16/24/32 from a lower number to a higher number will not increase the fidelity, the same with the bandwidth. Ideally, the orignal digital copy of the analog media should be done at the highest bandwidth and highest sample rate. Selected schemes, once burned to DVD/CD or stored on removable media may not be playable on other units. The CD industry settled for the .WAV format, 96k bw and 16 bits. Compression by any means put further limits on media content, regardless of the "lossless" claims.
mjd420nova is offline  
post #4 of 22 Old 02-03-2014, 10:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by southleft View Post

We have our CD collection ripped to a hard drive in 16/44 .wav format and it works fine. With access to larger hard drives we now want to re-rip for better sound quality. Has anyone here listened extensively to 24/192 vs. 32/192 ? Is it worth ripping in 32/192? Thanks for your thoughts on this.

To help your understanding of this issue, here is what upsamplers do. When upsampling 16 bits to > 16 bits the additional bits are first set to zero (0). When increasing the sample rate, the additional samples are first set to zero (0).

in short, upsampling is a way to make it cost you more to store your songs, by padding them with zeros.
arnyk is offline  
post #5 of 22 Old 02-03-2014, 05:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
wrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: w.p.b fl
Posts: 561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

To help your understanding of this issue, here is what upsamplers do. When upsampling 16 bits to > 16 bits the additional bits are first set to zero (0). When increasing the sample rate, the additional samples are first set to zero (0).

in short, upsampling is a way to make it cost you more to store your songs, by padding them with zeros.

but what if they are magic zeros,,,,,
wrat is offline  
post #6 of 22 Old 02-03-2014, 07:17 PM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
The CD industry settled for the .WAV format, 96k bw and 16 bits.

How do you get 96K of bandwidth out of a 44.1K sample rate?
SAM64 is offline  
post #7 of 22 Old 02-04-2014, 08:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

Quote:
The CD industry settled for the .WAV format, 96k bw and 16 bits.

How do you get 96K of bandwidth out of a 44.1K sample rate?

Conflate bandwidth and bitrate for lossy compressed files?
arnyk is offline  
post #8 of 22 Old 02-05-2014, 03:56 PM
ap1
AVS Special Member
 
ap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The very best modern audio DACs have between 20 and 21 bits of resolution. 24 bits in recording is already overkill.

Of cause if you are ripping CD, it is only 16/44.1, and there is nothing you can do about it. Always keep all digital files in their ORIGINAL format - in case of CD it is 16/44.1.
ap1 is online now  
post #9 of 22 Old 02-05-2014, 07:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Iostream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

The very best modern audio DACs have between 20 and 21 bits of resolution. 24 bits in recording is already overkill.

Of cause if you are ripping CD, it is only 16/44.1, and there is nothing you can do about it. Always keep all digital files in their ORIGINAL format - in case of CD it is 16/44.1.

24 bits in recording is certainly not overkill, But you confuse recording with output. I wouldn't dare record or produce in anything less than 24 bits, There is a lot going on when you are recording and mixing, the extra headroom in the dynamic range is particularly helpful in keeping the noise floor out of the signal. By the time you have mastered, this is no longer an issue, and printing to 16 bit is no loss of quality at all. Most of the noise is removed in mastering with a gate. The exception is when you might actually need over 93dB of dynamic range, though this would be incredibly rare in music.

To answer the original posters question, there is no benefit in upsampling a CD. 16/44.1 lossless is great.
JD NC likes this.
Iostream is offline  
post #10 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 05:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iostream View Post

24 bits in recording is certainly not overkill...

The Brownian motion of air at STP makes a noise just below 0 dB SPL. 24 bits gets you 144 dB of dynamic range above that - just about right for making:

(1) Nice recordings of natural music with the Brownian Motion of air rendered with 6 bit resolution.

(2) Nice recordings of sounds that it takes high explosives to create with a noise floor at 0 dB SPL.

(3) Unclipped recordings of thermonuclear blasts miced at a few feet with a normal quiet room's noise floor.
Quote:
I wouldn't dare record or produce in anything less than 24 bits,

That would appear to be personal angst operating.
Quote:
There is a lot going on when you are recording and mixing,

IME mixing is always based on tracking and your raw tracks are what they are and ever will be and perfectly knowable and defined.
Quote:
the extra headroom in the dynamic range is particularly helpful in keeping the noise floor out of the signal.

I don't know how a person can call himself a professional recordist if he can't set levels within 20 dB. : -)

One of the most telling events of history was the roll out of SACD and DVD-A around Y2K. It turns out that something like half of all releases had masters with 16 bits or less resolution in their provenance. Yet, not even on high end audio reviewer that I have heard of or has been pointed out to me was able to pinpoint even just one recording as being based on a substandard master.

In the end the whistle was blown by geeks with FFTs.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

A typical example of a so called high rez recording that was obviously upsampled from a low rez master:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3220-When-is-Hi-Res-not-really-Hi-Res/page16

arnyk is offline  
post #11 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 06:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Iostream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The Brownian motion of air at STP makes a noise just below 0 dB SPL. 24 bits gets you 144 dB of dynamic range above that - just about right for making:

(1) Nice recordings of natural music with the Brownian Motion of air rendered with 6 bit resolution.

(2) Nice recordings of sounds that it takes high explosives to create with a noise floor at 0 dB SPL.

(3) Unclipped recordings of thermonuclear blasts miced at a few feet with a normal quiet room's noise floor.
That would appear to be personal angst operating.
IME mixing is always based on tracking and your raw tracks are what they are and ever will be and perfectly knowable and defined.
I don't know how a person can call himself a professional recordist if he can't set levels within 20 dB. : -)
Clearly written by someone who doesn't actually record/mix. Let's assume you have a moderate actual noise floor from the recording of 10db, Not uncommon depending on what you are recording. Electronic noise, room noise, etc. Now you have to actually mix the tracks, you are merging tracks and going through EQ at the very least. 18db is considered safe headroom for mixing in most situations. This assumes you are leaving no headroom for mastering, which is unwise, common practice is to leave 3-6db after the mix before you master. You have just lost almost 5 bits of resolution. to noise and mixing headroom. Realistically you would have 72db of dynamic range available with 5 bits dedicated to noise and mix headroom. This is not enough. Now, realistically 20 bits would probably be fine in most situations, but 20 is not an option with most DAWs or recording interfaces, so 24 is your next step from 16.
Again, there is no reason to deliver a 24 bit track as a final product. The reason it is done is hype, "this is what it was recorded/mixed/mastered in" . I have complete faith in my dithered output because I have compared the 24 bit version to the 16 bit version every time. That said, sample rate conversion is less straight forward, and laziness prevails, so why bother to dither to 16/96 instead of just shipping 24/96?
speavler likes this.
Iostream is offline  
post #12 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 12:49 PM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't dare record or produce in anything less than 24 bits,

That would appear to be personal angst operating.

TV audio is currently recorded at 24bit, 48K.
On playback it is compressed to approximately a 6dB dynamic range for transmission....because this is, sadly, what the consumer wants.
SAM64 is offline  
post #13 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 01:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iostream View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The Brownian motion of air at STP makes a noise just below 0 dB SPL. 24 bits gets you 144 dB of dynamic range above that - just about right for making:

(1) Nice recordings of natural music with the Brownian Motion of air rendered with 6 bit resolution.

(2) Nice recordings of sounds that it takes high explosives to create with a noise floor at 0 dB SPL.

(3) Unclipped recordings of thermonuclear blasts miced at a few feet with a normal quiet room's noise floor.
That would appear to be personal angst operating.
IME mixing is always based on tracking and your raw tracks are what they are and ever will be and perfectly knowable and defined.
I don't know how a person can call himself a professional recordist if he can't set levels within 20 dB. : -)
Quote:
Clearly written by someone who doesn't actually record/mix.

I've recorded thousands of groups, and 100s of live events, and keep on doing it. I record band and choir festivals at regional and state level events and also mix religious events in mid-sized venues at least several events every week end.
Quote:
Let's assume you have a moderate actual noise floor from the recording of 10db, Not uncommon depending on what you are recording. Electronic noise, room noise, etc.

I can do this science experiment at wlll, and the numbers you throw around show exactly what your experience and knowlege is.

First off the self noise of the typical high quality microphone used in recording runs around the equivalent of 18 dB SPL. There are a few mics that do better than that and I've owned them and used them. This gets you to part two of the real world - the ambient noise in a room with an audience runs between 30 and 45 dB SPL. Take out the audience and you still have the self-noise of the musicans, which in large numbers (50-100) are like a small audience - a few dB better.

Quote:
Now you have to actually mix the tracks, you are merging tracks and going through EQ at the very least. 18db is considered safe headroom for mixing in most situations. This assumes you are leaving no headroom for mastering, which is unwise, common practice is to leave 3-6db after the mix before you master. You have just lost almost 5 bits of resolution. to noise and mixing headroom. Realistically you would have 72db of dynamic range available with 5 bits dedicated to noise and mix headroom.

The 18 dB headroom was presumably used while recording the tracks and therefore doesn't have to be put in again while you are mixing. No net loss.

if you look at actual commercial recordings, they have from 55 to 75 dB dynamic range with a few exceptions running higher.
arnyk is offline  
post #14 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 01:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't dare record or produce in anything less than 24 bits,

That would appear to be personal angst operating.

TV audio is currently recorded at 24bit, 48K.

Don't make the mistake of believing that just because the equipment is capable of working with 24 bits that the recordings they make, even in raw state are anywhere near the 144 dB dynamic range implied by 24 bits.

It's had to buy converters that don't have 24 bits on the front panel, but most them have converters that are capable of 100-110- at best 118 dB.

However, don't make the mistake of looking at the signals coming out of the mics and mixer, they are invariably worse, often far worse.
arnyk is offline  
post #15 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 01:58 PM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Don't make the mistake of attempting to be an authority on everything wink.gif
sivadselim likes this.
SAM64 is offline  
post #16 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 02:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,554
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Too late.
sivadselim likes this.
Ratman is offline  
post #17 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 04:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

Too late.

It would obviously not be a good thing for your egos if I started posting about my actual area of expertise which does not have to do with audio! ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #18 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 06:04 PM
Member
 
gnk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

It would obviously not be a good thing for your egos if I started posting about my actual area of expertise which does not have to do with audio! ;-)

Do tell!
gnk1 is offline  
post #19 of 22 Old 02-06-2014, 06:25 PM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
...if I started posting....

lol...when did you stop?

We get it arny , you know all there is to know about all things electronic......hence your continued posting to this well respected, highly esteemed forum of high tech.....where 90 % of the posts are about cables wink.gif
SAM64 is offline  
post #20 of 22 Old 02-07-2014, 04:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

Quote:
...if I started posting....

lol...when did you stop?

That's just it, you don't know what my area of greatest interest or knowledge is. It is violently OT here. Trust me, it ain't consumer audio or even audio at all.
Quote:
We get it Arny , you know all there is to know about all things electronic......hence your continued posting to this well respected, highly esteemed forum of high tech.....where 90 % of the posts are about cables wink.gif

We must be logged into different sites. ;-)

Most of the posts I see and answer are from newbies who just shot themselves in the foot while setting an AV system.
arnyk is offline  
post #21 of 22 Old 02-07-2014, 05:33 AM
 
SAM64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
That's just it, you don't know what my area of greatest interest or knowledge is.

...and you don't know mine. You just assume you do.
Quote:
Trust me, it ain't consumer audio or even audio at all.

And trust me, I have knowledge and experience that you clearly lack.
Quote:
Most of the posts I see and answer are from newbies

...then don't you feel your talents are wasted, answering questions about conductors?
SAM64 is offline  
post #22 of 22 Old 02-08-2014, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrat View Post

but what if they are magic zeros,,,,,

Now that is another story wink.gifbiggrin.gif
CharlesJ is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off