Dang Jim, you always seem to get your issue at least a week ahead of the rest of us!

Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere...

Agree fully! Great commentary! Enjoying 24/96 tracks via Squeezebox Touch S/PDIF into a Benchmark DAC-1.

Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere.

I have chosen to go the less expensive route with my use of the $40 Audio DVD Creator program (downloadable)that allows you to create/burn 2496 tracks on DVD+Rs as pcm files that are playable on "just about any" 2496 capable DVD player. So far I have only had one friend have a disc not play on one of his players. It even creates PAL discs for the European market that have played without a hitch.

The excitement for me has been in finding a cheap way to enter the hi-rez market and not need a dedicated DVD-A player to make music so easily enjoyable by nearly anyone. All that is holding me back is my inexpensive recording gear, but for what I do and charge (nothing) it is amply good enough as the people I record for attest.

I hope some of you take JMR's advise. It is most enjoyable to listen in Hi-Rez and you may find yourself ripping some vinyl to hi-rez...just because you can.

It is easy, even for me, to hear the improvments that 2496 make from my same recordings also done simultaneously in redbook format for cd releases. Hop on board. For many of you with great systems you will easily hear the improvements.

Having been on the hi rez wagon for 3+ years, I gotta agree. My CD player is really a $2400 DVD player with a 24/192 upgrade board. Listening to DVD-A is a whole other experience than listening to redbooks. BTW, I am looking forward to receiving my newest purchase: Steely Dan: Gaucho on DVD-A

It was a great article, and many excellent points were made.

However, I really like music neatly arranged on shelves, categorized and alphabetized, with liner notes and photographs. I don't think I can get over that.

OK, here's my confusion. If 24/192 is available, why "settle" for 24/96?. Can someone explain the difference to me in plain language? In other words Hi-Rez for dummies.
Also, what about 24/352.8 like this:http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=FIMDX080

Neither of the two formats are that "available". If you follow discussions on the web, it's clear that Sony just don't want to go through the extra to provide good music experiences for the consumers. In other words, they view both formats as a flop, because there are so few buyers. My best guess is that less than a thousand titles are available on 24 bit.

Quote:
It is a great article and hopefully will push more audiophiles in the 24/96 camp as the wide range of hardware seems to be coming from everywhere.

Quote:
Agree fully! Great commentary! Enjoying 24/96 tracks via Squeezebox Touch S/PDIF into a Benchmark DAC-1.

Jim and others,

It should be noted that one can play 24bit/96kHz and 24bit/88.2kHz hi-rez files via the Squeezebox Touch without having to use a computer since the Touch can play these files directly from either a USB flash drive or an SD card.

In other words, copy the files onto a flash drive and insert the flash drive into the Touch and bingo - hi-rez playback for only $300! Plus the analog output of the Touch, while not up to the highest audiophile standards, is still quite good and of course the Touch's digital output can always be fed into a top notch DAC with excellent results.

I highly recommend that you give the Touch a listen - you will be very pleasantly surprised.

Quote:
You may have just made me rearrange my Christmas list. Darn.

Jim,

Don't you have Labor Day, Columbus Day, Halloween and Thanksgiving Day lists? Why wait until Christmas? Besides the economy needs help now!

So does Jim's economy!

...or maybe Jim doesn't need help with his personal finances because he doesn't buy everything he lusts after...

Joking aside, the Touch really does strike me as obscenely good value for money. Well worthy of Jim's (and others') consideration!

Quote:
Sometimes life gets in the way.

Keep ploughing your furrow Jim. In the meantime you're making some of us out here very happy with your care packages

Agreed

Quote:

Quote:
Sometimes life gets in the way.

Keep ploughing your furrow Jim. In the meantime you're making some of us out here very happy with your care packages

Yes, indeed.

When I see a post like this, nothing personal, I begin to wonder how much progress we have made since the 1960s, when people would be stereo equipment based on reading the specifications.

Not quite that long ago, but, long ago, I had to pick up something at Radio Shack, and I listened to the speakers they had on live display, and the little one-driver speaker sounded better than the 2-way. I commented upon that to the salesman, who said, sorry, taking his pipe out of his mouth and using it to indicate which speaker he was talking about at the time, __that__ speaker has only one driver, while this one has two, so this one sounds better. I did not argue the point, but the 2-way was boomy and tizzy, while the single-driver had something like a midrange.

Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

Yes, good hi-res is better. But specsmanship tells you nothing. I was founding contributing editor for classical music of Digital Audio magazine, and my label JMR put out the first Bach solo cello suites CD set that was recorded in 20-bit sound. I have recorded up to 192 kHz. I have edited a lot of 24/96, and made one-off DVDs, etc. So, I have a little hands-on experience.

What I said in my article was that (based on long professional experience), 24/96 was the best compromise taking into account many factors including equipment cost, storage space, and delivery media.

You can do 24/96 on a regular stereo DVD. To go up to 192, you need Blu-Ray. There is no consumer playback format for 352. You need a dedicated workstation. There are only a few 352 DACs.

A higher-quality DAC that only does 96 will sound better than a garbage 192 DAC that is boob bait for people who buy by specs and not sound. Things like, power supply and regulation, quality and sound of passive components, and grounding schemes make as much difference as the chipsets used and the SR difference between 96 and 192.

Given converters of the same quality or using the same converter, there will be some aspects that are slightly better at 192. But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental.

24/96 is not "settling," it is optimal--as a DELIVERY format. Of course, it is usually the better engineering practice to record in higher resolution than you deliver.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the piano recording you link to is a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16. It was recorded at 352. And than 7/8ths of the data was thrown out to make a CD.

JA, please chime in if you wish.

JM

Quote:
When I see a post like this, nothing personal, I begin to wonder how much progress we have made since the 1960s, when people would be stereo equipment based on reading the specifications.

Not quite that long ago, but, long ago, I had to pick up something at Radio Shack, and I listened to the speakers they had on live display, and the little one-driver speaker sounded better than the 2-way. I commented upon that to the salesman, who said, sorry, taking his pipe out of his mouth and using it to indicate which speaker he was talking about at the time, __that__ speaker has only one driver, while this one has two, so this one sounds better. I did not argue the point, but the 2-way was boomy and tizzy, while the single-driver had something like a midrange.

Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

Yes, good hi-res is better. But specsmanship tells you nothing. I was founding contributing editor for classical music of Digital Audio magazine, and my label JMR put out the first Bach solo cello suites CD set that was recorded in 20-bit sound. I have recorded up to 192 kHz. I have edited a lot of 24/96, and made one-off DVDs, etc. So, I have a little hands-on experience.

What I said in my article was that (based on long professional experience), 24/96 was the best compromise taking into account many factors including equipment cost, storage space, and delivery media.

You can do 24/96 on a regular stereo DVD. To go up to 192, you need Blu-Ray. Not quite true actually. DVD's support 192 kHz as they do 96 kHz. There is no consumer playback format for 352. You need a dedicated workstation. There are only a few 352 DACs.

A higher-quality DAC that only does 96 will sound better than a garbage 192 DAC that is boob bait for people who buy by specs and not sound. Things like, power supply and regulation, quality and sound of passive components, and grounding schemes make as much difference as the chipsets used and the SR difference between 96 and 192.

Given converters of the same quality or using the same converter, there will be some aspects that are slightly better at 192. But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental.

24/96 is not "settling," it is optimal--as a DELIVERY format. Of course, it is usually the better engineering practice to record in higher resolution than you deliver.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the piano recording you link to is a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16. It was recorded at 352. And than 7/8ths of the data was thrown out to make a CD.

JA, please chime in if you wish.

JM

I appreciate this discussion and have a growing list of 24/96 home rips of my records. I also buy some from HDtracks.

I do have one disagreement though. It does not take a system of special sensitivity or musical aplomb to hear the difference. My wife can routinely tell when I am making cd quality discs from the 24/96 files. She can tell from another room and over Infinity Primus speakers driven by an Old NAD amp. A typical comment goes like "Wow, what just happened to the sound?" I do not own a high end system, and the difference is clear and easily acknowledged.

On why not 24/192 or higher, for me, it is a matter of hardware! There is a diminishing return as well, and in my humble (but well exercised) system, there is not enough diff to upgrade. the 24/96 sounds enough like vinyl for me to be happy listening that way. And my family loves it because they are intimidated by the record player. Must be all the arcane rituals I do before playing one.

Trey

BTW, as far as I can tell, the recordings offered on your website are nothing more than a PLAIN OLD CD, 44.1/16.

Have I missed something, or do you like JA merely talk the talk?

If there is a

It might tone down your unfortunate attitude.

The reality is, even though it distresses me, that many buyers of classical recordings seem content with MP3. Perhaps you missed the large statements on my website that I have outsourced all fulfillment to Arkivmusic.com. It is they who decide what to offer, and they are not interested in hi-res at this time because their research indicates that their customers are no more interested in hi-res downloads than they were in SACD.

The other reality is, I am not eager to incur more costs on old titles and then have the revenue split five ways by going elsewhere for online distribution.

JA and I are in fact discussing recording a classical "single" track in hi-res, and selling it through Stereophile's website's e-commerce pages. That way, there won't be two middlemen.

JM

Quote:
JA and I are in fact discussing recording a classical "single" track in hi-res, and selling it through Stereophile's website's e-commerce pages. That way, there won't be two middlemen.

The accusation could also be leveled at Stereophile in that while we are aggressively promoting the idea that hi-rez files are a valid approach to high-end audio playback, Stereophile's own recordings are also only currently available as 16-bit/44.1kHz CDs.

In addition to the remastering costs mentioned by JM, there are also contractual hurdles that need to be renegotiated. I am well on the way to getting these things sorted out and I am confident that people will be able to purchase hi-rez downloads of some of the Stereophile recordings this coming fall.

I say "some" because not all the recordings I made before 2004 were recorded with high sample rates. So while recent recordings will be available as 24-bit/88.2kHz files, earlier recordings will be available as 24-bit/44.1kHz files.

Some projects, like the 1999 Clarinet Quintets, the Hyperion Knight Rhapsody in Blue, and the Silverman Beethoven Sonatas, were all recorded at 88.2kHz or 96kHz, but the edited performances need to be reassembled from the session files. This will be time-consuming, so I am anticipating high-sample-rate versions of these projects being available some time in 2011 or 2012.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Good CD sound is better than bad hi-res sound.

A result of unhappy HDtracks Hi-Rez download customers...

Upsampled SACD's

John,
First, thanks for chiming in! Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I understand about "specmanship". All the numbers thrown around(24/96, 24/192, etc.)had me confused!
I wasn't making a statement about which is better(at least I didn't mean to)I was ASKING for clarification which you have provided(more or less). "But the watershed, the huge night and day difference, is going up from 16 bits 44.1 kHz to 20 bits 44.1 kHz.. All the other improvements are to a greater or lesser degree incremental." Now this I did not know. I do know 20/44.1 can be had with "plain old" cds.

Allow me to throw in my 25 cents. I have a 24/192 DVD-A that could easily be mistaken for a redbook cd, and I have cd's that might be mistaken for 24/96 recordings. When I compare 24/96 with 24/192 the difference is rarely that big. Minute details like better room information or a more relaxed sound are mostly the only differences.

Quote:
I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

Regular DVD-V will store and playback 2-channel audio at 192kHz, Jim.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
What you are saying is that at 24/192 all the recording and engineering work are truly laid bare and flaws in that work are very noticable.

I also agree that redbook quality is all over the place and you have made me aware of some great redbook music. I can say that in my own work I can easily hear the difference between the redbook copies and the 2496. I must also add that I am not doing any post recording mastering of my work so I am not changning anything prior to burning. It is what it is.

I was just curious as to whether the next jump to 24/192 would also be easily discernable. I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

I am now wondering about SACD/DSD. If to be mastered the original recorded DSD stream is converted to analogue for the mstering/manipulation, and then reconverted back to DSD, what is lost...if anything? Is DSD such an improvement that the little that is lost is not important?

24/192 is no less universal than 24/96 IMO.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not want to have to do DVD-A if I do 24/192 as for me it defeats the point of creating a "universal" disc.

Regular DVD-V will store and playback 2-channel audio at 192kHz, Jim.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

But mp3's go all the way up to 320!!, which is almost double 192!!

Just kidding. But hopefully the above statement will help to show exactly what kind of misunderstandings hi-rez playback faces with regards to the general public. For the vast majority of people mp3 at 128kbps is good enough. Not only that but they believe that mp3 at 128kbps is equal to CD quality. So. please, don't hold your breath waiting for hi-rez music to become widely available.

Remember it's not 96 kHz vs 192 kHz which is important. It's the 24 bit that's the most important IMO. Our hearing probably stops somewhere around 20 bit, and like somebody else mentioned (I don't recall who) 24/192 is more than our hearing ability can make proper use of.

Like I have mentioned to Jim, the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 is (on my equipment) not worth the effort. For example I have a couple of great 24/96 recordings, and 5 24/192 recordings in my collection. By far the best is the 24/96 Stravinsky files NC linked to the other day. They are the best hi-rez files I have ever heard.

Speaking of 32 bit 384 kHz is pure madness.

Gee, you wrote:

"I do know 20/44.1 can be had with "plain old" cds."

Please tell me, where does that knowledge come from?

People might claim that what they get from POCDs is "as good as" 20-bit, but, as far as I know, it is impossible.

Using HDCD encoding, it is possible to mimic the performance of higher-resolution recording, but, an HDCD is not a POCD. It is a proprietary perceptual algorithm that requires a special chip to decode. And, even then, the data density falls way short of 20-bit. They just argue (with some success) that their "massaging" gives you most of the benefits of 20-bit with lower data density.

No, what I meant was, a 20-bit master tape is a huge amount better than a 16-bit master tape.

ATB,

JM

Quote:
what I meant was, a 20-bit master tape is a huge amount better than a 16-bit master tape.

See my comments on the difference at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/523/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Also a good little article: http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

For the vast majority, I believe you're absolutely right. Mp3 and redbooks are just what they need. We ARE a minority. People searching for the truth, that be in audio or in real life with all it's mysteries, are a rare species. However the audio truth as we know it for now (it may change in the future!) lies in hi-rez if you ask me.

I'm sure that there are a lot of audiophiles like me with fine CD-based systems who have read the hi-rez article and have followed these posts but are a bit overwhelmed and somewhat confused as to how to get into hi-rez downloads for our systems.
I, for one, am looking for a single component within $3K, that can download wirelessly from my computer, and that contains a hard drive, access screen and a high-end DAC-nothing more.I just want to make two interconnections to my preamp and that's it.

The article didn't mention any such components. Why ? Are these not developed yet ?

Ok,
And does that 20 bit master eventually get transferred to POCD?
Or are there also 20 bit downloads? I have at least one POCD from DMP with the insert stating that it is a 20 bit recording. Would this not sound better than 16 bit? Or is it just hype? I also have a POCD from Yarlung that was recorded direct to 2 tracks @ 24/176.
Would this sound better than 16/44.1? Or does it not matter as it's all on POCD?
I do realize Hi-Rez playback is best BTW.
P.S. maybe I should change the acronym KISS to KISFS(Keep It Simple For Stupid;that would be me).

You would be the one to know, surely. If I was to guess, I'd be lost. But is it wrong to guess that since they recorded it on 20 bit, they have done a serious job with the downsampling and everything else that matters? I think not.

That seems reasonable to me.

I was married to a recod company executive for awhile and can report that these folks do not look at the world as you and I do. For instance, back in the cassette heyday, the company thought about spending less than a dime a tape and make them higher quality. Instead of making a decision, the focus group tested it and decided that the customers didn't care about how the music sounded.

This is also the thinking that led to the 9 cut records that RCA was putting out in the 80s. People would criticize RCA, and the lable would respond "Yeah, but our records have more hits and that is what the people want, more hits. They don't care about how many tracks are on the record."

So the major lable folks are interested in selling units. Period.

Trey