24-bit/192 Khz versus 24/96, 24/48, 16/48 (dither TPDF) and 16/44.1

Can you hear the difference? Tell us.

24/192 pbthal -> FLAC 0: 24/96, 24/48, 16/48 (dither TPDF) and 16/44.1 with dBpoweramp (windows).

Only 16/48 have dither, triangular (TPDF).

Download (reupload 22.04.2012): 119.6 MB

with new two files in /others:

• 16192-TPDF-Untitledb-maty.flac
• 1696-TPDF-Untitledb-maty.flac

I think:

  1. The original 24/192 is the best in this vinyl rip – 41 MB
  2. 24/96 sounds very well – 24 MB
  3. 24/48 and 16/48 (TPDF) sound very similar – 13 MB and 6 MB
  4. 16/44.1 without dither is the worse with difference – 6 MB

foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2012-02-25 00:00:00

——————————————————————————–
Statistics for: ?-1644-none-Untitledb-maty
Number of samples: 3289256
Duration: 1:15
——————————————————————————–

Left Right

Peak Value: -1.56 dB — -0.63 dB
Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
DR channel: 17.91 dB — 18.73 dB
——————————————————————————–

Official DR Value: DR18

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 735 kbps
Codec: FLAC
=============================================
——————————————————————————–
Statistics for: ?-1648-TPDF-Untitledb-maty
Number of samples: 3580143
Duration: 1:15
——————————————————————————–

Left Right

Peak Value: -1.15 dB — -0.57 dB
Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
DR channel: 18.16 dB — 18.62 dB
——————————————————————————–

Official DR Value: DR18

Samplerate: 48000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 782 kbps
Codec: FLAC
=============================================
——————————————————————————–
Statistics for: ?-2448-Untitledb-maty
Number of samples: 3580143
Duration: 1:15
——————————————————————————–

Left Right

Peak Value: -1.15 dB — -0.57 dB
Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
DR channel: 18.16 dB — 18.62 dB
——————————————————————————–

Official DR Value: DR18

Samplerate: 48000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 1550 kbps
Codec: FLAC
=============================================
——————————————————————————–
Statistics for: ?-2496-Untitledb-maty
Number of samples: 7160286
Duration: 1:15
——————————————————————————–

Left Right

Peak Value: -0.87 dB — -0.44 dB
Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
DR channel: 18.45 dB — 18.75 dB
——————————————————————————–

Official DR Value: DR19

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2717 kbps
Codec: FLAC
=============================================
——————————————————————————–
Statistics for: ?-24192-Untitledb-pbthal
Number of samples: 14320573
Duration: 1:15
——————————————————————————–

Left Right

Peak Value: -0.82 dB — -0.43 dB
Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
DR channel: 18.53 dB — 18.76 dB
——————————————————————————–

Official DR Value: DR19

Samplerate: 192000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 4695 kbps
Codec: FLAC
=============================================

Acerca de maty
Nauscopio Scipiorum

34 Responses to 24-bit/192 Khz versus 24/96, 24/48, 16/48 (dither TPDF) and 16/44.1

  1. maty dice:

    Dynamic Range Meter – foobar2000 Component

    About

    Dynamic Range Meter is a foobar2000 component designed to give the same information as the Dynamic Range Offline Meter. This component can process all audio formats foobar2000 can handle (a.o. flac, ape and wavpack) and also supports higher samplerates and bitdepth.

    Using the Open Audio CD option it can also directly read audio CDs and calculate the Dynamic Range values without the need of ripping the CD to disk. Log information with extended statistics is automatically copied to the clipboard and can be pasted back in any text editor…

    -> foo_dynamic_range.zip

    • qbit dice:

      En ese sitio dicen que: “DR Values may vary for the same song in different formats. This is caused by the algorithms applied in audio compression formats”.

      Supongo que se refieren a formatos de compresión con pérdida de información, solamente, ¿no?, y que el rango dinámico en formatos de compresión sin pérdida como FLAC y WAV será el mismo.

  2. maty dice:

    Acabo de comparar 24/192 (FLAC) versus 16/44.1 (MP3, LAME CBR 320kbps). La percusión es la clave, más aireada en el primero. El MP3 parece tener más bajas frecuencias, pero debe ser por la ausencia de las altas, digo.

    OjO, el MP3 suena muy bien pues la grabación es excelente, pero el anterior todavía es mejor.

    foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
    log date: 2012-02-26 00:00:00

    —————————————————
    Statistics for: ?-none-Untitledb-pbthal
    Number of samples: 3289256
    Duration: 1:15
    —————————————————

    Left Right

    Peak Value: -1.47 dB — -0.66 dB
    Avg RMS: -23.16 dB — -22.07 dB
    DR channel: 17.94 dB — 18.72 dB
    ————————————————–

    Official DR Value: DR18

    Samplerate: 44100 Hz
    Channels: 2
    Bitrate: 320 kbps
    Codec: MP3
    ==============================

  3. maty dice:

    hometheaterhifi.com Vinyl vs. CD – A Running Commentary – Parts 6 – 9 John E. Johnson, Jr. 02.10.2009

    Part 9: A Few Bits About DACs

    Below is a graph, showing the fine detail of digital recordings made at 16/44, 16/96, 16/192, 24/44, 24/96, and 24/192 using a 10 kHz sine wave. I wanted to vary only the word length for the test, to show that any differences would be a result of the sampling frequency; otherwise there would be a compounding of variables. So, the sampling frequency graphs are shown both for 16 bit and 24 bit word lengths. From left to right, the plot spans 0.001 second, that is 1/1000th of a second. The dots on the graphs represent individual samples, so we are talking about really fine detail analysis here.

    The dots represent finite voltage values that are fed in sequence as a stream to the DAC, which then produces a stair-stepped output, after which a low-pass reconstruction filter smooths out the signal. What I want you to notice is how jagged the lines are at standard Redbook CD 16/44. The DAC and reconstruction filter’s job is to make these jagged lines more sinusoidal, so that it will be like the music that was recorded, which is also sinusoidal. There are various ways of applying filters, and we won’t get into that here, but I was really surprised at how poorly the 16/44 digital stream is representing the original 10 kHz sine wave. Notice that even at 16/96, the lines are not all that smooth. But, at 16/192, the sine wave looks very good. If we were observing a 10 kHz sine wave coming off an LP and displayed on an oscilloscope, it would be essentially sinusoidal, not jagged (it would not be perfectly smooth of course, as there would be at least a little distortion in the signal being played)…

  4. maty dice:

    brite said in a forum:

    I can say just from my own experience there is a difference in sample rates but not so much in bit rates. A vinyl rip at 96/24 sounds very much the same as a 96/16 rip. At 192/16, 24, 32 float you are basically overkill for what is needed and the file size is unessisarily large at that point. You can however tell a big difference between 96/whatever bit rate and 48 or 44.1/whatever bit rate. This is very apparent with horns, drums, and stringed instruments where you loose harmonics and subtle details like fingers on strings at redbook CD specs. While even at 192/24 horns still break up it is only on very high notes and strong transient changes. 44.1/16 obliterates and/or completely drops that information. I personally now record at 96/24 and sample down to what is needed for a particular project keeping the files intact for DVD-A or direct out listening.

    My best example and test I use for people locally is Cat Stevens Hard Headed Woman from a first pressing USA A&M brown label. I play my redbook CD first and then wow them with the DVD-A rendition of the same track. Sounds good right? Then I hit em with the original vinyl volume matched and incredibly that vinyl sounds better with air and transients intact sounding like Cat and Alun are in the room right there. It does proove that while digital is perfect spec wise it does tend to loose information just by it’s very design. It can scentificaly reproduce a waveform in the most accurate way but phycoacoustically it fails to capture everything most experienced listeners and even inexperienced can and do hear.

    One other aspect vinyl has over Digital reproduction is crosstalk. As humans we seem to enjoy stereo or surround music a bit more when a little crosstalk is present. Digital has the ability to clearly separate channels where vinyl fails due to it’s design. Same with analog tape.

    Another small factiod. Many of the recordings after 1979 started or ended as digital renditions. In fact the Columbia Mastersound series touted their superior 44.1/16 DAT mastering process which turned out to be not as good as advertised. If you are an experienced listener and the engineer was not as good as they should be you can clearly tell a digitally recorded drum set from a analog recorded set. Analog drums are blury but sound like a drum set live. Cymbals louder than toms or kicks and snare natuaral sounding. Digital drums are loud regardless of the part played, sharp in impact, sometimes heavily compressed, and cymbals almost never ring and fade like they should. Recently however that has changed with higher end recording techniques but I challenge you to listen to Men At Work, the first LP and Cargo on the Mastersound series (digital mastering) and the normal 80′s issue (analog tape). You will clearly hear the difference. Also a first pressing of Alice Cooper Welcome To My Nightmare (analog tape) and the last late 80′s buget series vinyl (digital mastering) and there again is a clear difference in sound. Also see the Rhino DVD-A issue of the same which has a distinct digital signature to it.

    There you go my .50 cents of discussion.

  5. maty dice:

    Sampling Theory For Digital Audio By Dan Lavry, Lavry Engineering, Inc.

    http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

  6. maty dice:

    Antiquiet.com 24-Bit Audio Explained By Sean Beavan Skwerl, 28.02.2011

    It absolutely must be understood that 24-bit audio isn’t just about “ripping” the fully mastered recordings we’re all familiar with to a slightly different digital format. Just as the mastering process for vinyl is -and in fact must be- completely different than the mastering process for 16-bit CDs or radio; to bring 24-bit audio to market, it’s nearly guaranteed that the labels will locate the pre-mastered tapes (or Pro Tools sessions or what have you) and remaster them responsibly to take proper advantage of the benefits of the 24-bit format. And you may or may not be surprised to learn that these differences aren’t so subtle. Even a non-audiophile can hear them on a regular consumer stereo system. You may also be surprised to learn that the infrastructure to properly bring what is essentially an entirely new format to market is already in place (more or less) at the labels…

    No hay que perderse los comentarios!

    Para mí está claro: si la grabación original es excelente (muy poco habitual hoy en día, sobre todo en música popular), un buen DAC es capaz de aprovechar los ripeos a 24/192 y 24/96.

    Antes de la última modificación de las cajas Denon, los ripeos a 24/192 me sonaban un tanto irreales, no me convencía el sonido, que no es el caso con el ripeo de PBThal que comparto.

    E insisto, las cajas Denon suenan definitivamente mejor que semanas atrás. Desconozco la causa, pero sólo se me ocurre que el sellador acrílico que puse entre las dos capas de Tecsound SY 70 del sandwich con fibra de vidrio se ha secado lo suficiente, dando mayor rigidez a las cajas -y, por tanto, un sonido más nítido y detallado. Ha tardado meses, y eso que lo hice en junio, con aire acondicionado/bomba de calor y tienen el agujero del bass-reflex. De ahí que la próxima vez que retoque unas cajas -y más si no tienen BR- pegaré directamente las capas, poniendo más sellador en la unión con la fibra de vidrio/lana de roca -que transpiran y facilitan un secado rápido.

    Ah, definitivamente el DAC que incorpora mi TV Panasonic de Plasma es excelente.

    Son otros los que tienen un equipo de música que no puede reproducir apropiadamente 24/192, 24/96 y 24/48 o están bastante sordos -muy habitual entre la juventud hoy en día por el abuso de auriculares y música a muy alto volumen en discotecas y demás antros, digo.

    El eslabón débil es el DAC. Meses atrás lo sospechaba -no podía creerme que el incluido en el televisor fuese tan bueno, ahora tengo la convicción -que no certeza.

  7. maty dice:

    Computer Audiophile 24-bit/192kHz is pointless? DavidJPettifor, 28.09.2008

    -> monoandstereo.com Interview with Dan Lavry of Lavry Engineering

    We see that year by year there is kind of race for bits and high sampling rates. Where do you think this will stop?

    Regarding bits: The ear can not hear more then about 126dB of dynamic range under extreme conditions. At around 6dB per bit, that amounts to 21 bits, which is what my AD122 MKIII provides (unweighted).

    Regarding sample rate: The ear can not hear over 25-30KHz, therefore 60-70KHz would be ideal. Unfortunately there is no 65KHz standard, but 88.2KHz or even 96KHz is not too far from the optimal rate. 192KHz is way off the mark. It brings about higher distortions, bigger data files, increased processing costs, and all that for no up side! People that think that more samples are better, and that digital is only an approximation, do not understand the fundamentals of digital audio…

  8. maty dice:

    Head-Fi 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! gregorio, 19.03.2009

    Hay mucha polémica/discusión al respecto. De lo único que tengo certeza es que yo noto la diferencia y es para mejor. Lo llamativo es que gente que ha gastado (decenas)miles de euros/dólares en el equipo y en la sala no sean capaces de diferenciarlo.

    Haré la prueba con los auriculares Samson SR850 en el Denon. Si continúo apreciándolo, gastándome sólo 31 euros… sería de traca.

  9. maty dice:

    Catswold sends me these very interesting links:

    soundstagehifi.com Understanding Digital Music — What Bit Depth and Sample Rate Really Mean: Part One S. Andrea Sundaram, 15.02.2011

    soundstagehifi.com Understanding Digital Music — What Bit Depth and Sample Rate Really Mean: Part Two S. Andrea Sundaram, 15.04.2011

    and

    soundstagehifi.com Not All Vinyl Is Created Equal S. Andrea Sundaram, 01.05.2011

  10. maty dice:

    hometheaterhifi.com Editorial: Notes on Converting SACD Music Tracks to PCM in Disc Players John E. Johnson, Jr.

    Below are shown two spectra. The first one is an FFT analysis of a 1 kHz sine wave that was recorded using the SACD codec (DSD). The DSD track was then converted to PCM at 176.4 kHz sampling rate. Notice the large noise hump that begins at about 25 kHz and extends to 85 kHz. Converting SACD to PCM does not eliminate the noise that was in the DSD signal…

    and…

    Converting SACD to 176.4 kHz PCM (or 192 kHz PCM) probably results in worse sound, not better.

  11. maty dice:

    The Well-Tempered Computer Asynchronous USB 2 DACs

    USB Audio class 1 is limited to 24 bits/ 96 kHz maximum.
    This is what fits into USB Full Speed mode so 12 MHz (USB 1).
    To play higher sample rates the High Speed mode (USB 2, 480 MHz) is needed.

    From mid-2010 on both OSX and Linux supports USB audio class 2 natively.
    If the DAC is USB audio class 2 compliant it will play up to 32/384 on these systems without the need to install additional drivers.

    Microsoft doesn’t have a native mode USB Audio class 2 driver. You need to install a third party Class 2 Audio driver at the PC side.

    All DACs listed in this section requires USB 2 (High Speed).
    The fact that they do need USB 2 (High Speed) does not necessarily imply they are also USB audio class 2 compliant.

    Using High Speed might have an unexpected consequence.
    Some audiophile USB cables are of such a low build quality that they will fail you the moment you switch to high speed mode.
    The higher band width simply requires a digital cable build to close tolerances.

    A lot of USB audio class 2 compliant DACs use the XMOS chipset.
    Sagittarius has compiled an overview.

  12. maty dice:

    Tweak-Fi Review: Kingrex UD384 USB DAC (32bit/384Khz) & UPower Amine Slimani

    So why bother releasing such a DAC? After listening for several weeks to the Kingrex UD384, I think that there is at least two possible explanations.

    First, there are record companies, such as 2L, that are starting to offer higher resolution files than 24/192 (for instance the 24/352 DXD format, or even the non PCM 1bit DSD format).

    Second, having a 32/384 capable usb DAC allows you to upsample any file (from mp3 to DSD) into 384 KHz directly in your media player. Whether that is a good or bad thing will be discussed later…

  13. maty dice:

    You must read

    DSD-Guide.com DSD – The New Addiction by Andreas Koch

    What is DSD?

    The term Direct Stream Digital (DSD) was coined by Sony and Philips when they jointly launched the SACD format. It is nothing else than processed Delta-Sigma modulation first developed by Philips in the 1970’s. Its first wide market entry was not until later in the 1980’s when it was used as an intermediate format inside A/D and D/A converter chips…

    Redbook CD (16/44.1kHz) 32MB
    PCM 24/96kHz 103MB
    DSD 2.8224MHz 127MB

    Conclusion

    While DSD continues being used on every SACD, it may also have an additional new growth life as a separate download format. Its sonic performance makes it competitive with any high resolution PCM format, many listeners would argue it is even superior. Its bit efficiency alone almost guarantees a success in that application. Yesterday any audio format was strongly married to some type of hardware carrier (i.e. vinyl, CD, SACD etc.) and that hindered the evolution of the encoding formats, be that in PCM or DSD. But today we are entering an era where the hardware does not impose the same limitations. It is becoming flexible and upgradeable thanks to software control and computer platforms. This is not only true for storage, processing, simple playback functionality, but also for physical links (i.e. USB) all the way to the place where music is made, in the DAC. When yesterday the encoding format had to adapt to the hardware carrier (packaged media), today the table is being turned: the hardware adapts to the encoding format. In other words today’s computer technology can grow with whatever format we may choose for today or tomorrow. Today it may be a combination of high rate PCM and DSD, tomorrow it may be mostly DSD.

  14. maty dice:

    auriculares.org DACS. Impresiones y Reflexiones rocoa

    Hace tiempo que me pregunté que tiene el Benchmark DAC para ser aupado a los altares de la gloria por gran parte de las publicaciones de audio que leo y por ello me decidí a comprobar personalmente que hay de cierto en ello.

    Me compré hace dos años el Benchmark DAC USB y me gustó tanto que posteriormente adquirí el Benchmark DAC pre, con preamplificador incorporado, para un proyecto que luego no llegó a concretarse, razón por la cual me deshice del mismo y ahora lo disfruta el amigo pachin.

    Es curioso que no sólo la prensa americana se haya dedicado a “beatificarlo” sino también la francesa y la inglesa…

    El lenguaje es un tanto esotérico para mi gusto.

    Por ahora, el DAC que incluye mi TV Panasonic es más que suficiente para mí. Sin tener una sala dedicada es una tontería gastarme más dinero, pues el equipo Denon está secuestrado, de ahí que me centre en mejorar la experiencia sonora donde tengo la torre, más práctico.

  15. maty dice:

    Menéame El sinsentido del audio a 24 bits/ 192Khz [Eng]

    Slashdot Why Distributing Music As 24-bit/192kHz Downloads Is Pointless

    -> xiph.org 24/192 Music Downloads …and why they make no sense Monty

    Como dicen por ahí, la clave está en los harmónicos (además de una grabación original de calidad, algo raro de encontrar en las modernas a la venta).

    También hay que tener en cuenta, dicen, que no todos los DAC lo hacen igual de bien.

    Con 24/88.2 (SACD) y 24/96 es suficiente hoy en día. En mi equipo Denon, dichas versiones suenan mejor que su equivalente 16/44.1 (Redbook, el formato CD).

    Y luego está el soporte original.

    Finalmente, que el ingeniero de sonido no sea un chapuzas, demasiado habitual hoy en día, desaprovechando casi siempre la gran mejora teconológica actual.

    Es un asunto muy complejo, con demasiadas variantes que intervienen en la calidad final del sonido que podemos disfrutar comercialmente.

  16. maty dice:

    cco.caltech.edu There’s Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz James Boyk, 1992, 1997

    Abstract

    At least one member of each instrument family (strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion) produces energy to 40 kHz or above, and the spectra of some instruments reach this work’s measurement limit of 102.4 kHz. Harmonics of muted trumpet extend to 80 kHz; violin and oboe, to above 40 kHz; and a cymbal crash was still strong at 100 kHz. In these particular examples, the proportion of energy above 20 kHz is, for the muted trumpet, 2 percent; violin, 0.04 percent; oboe, 0.01 percent; and cymbals, 40 percent. Instruments surveyed are trumpet with Harmon (“wah-wah”) and straight mutes; French horn muted, unmuted and bell up; violin sul ponticello and double-stopped; oboe; claves; triangle; a drum rimshot; crash cymbals; piano; jangling keys; and sibilant speech.

    A discussion of the significance of these results describes others’ work on perception of air- and bone-conducted ultrasound; and points out that even if ultrasound be taken as having no effect on perception of live sound, yet its presence may still pose a problem to the audio equipment designer and recording engineer

    X. Significance of the results

    Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz “induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality.” [4]

    Oohashi and his colleagues recorded gamelan to a bandwidth of 60 kHz, and played back the recording to listeners through a speaker system with an extra tweeter for the range above 26 kHz. This tweeter was driven by its own amplifier, and the 26 kHz electronic crossover before the amplifier used steep filters. The experimenters found that the listeners’ EEGs and their subjective ratings of the sound quality were affected by whether this “ultra-tweeter” was on or off, even though the listeners explicitly denied that the reproduced sound was affected by the ultra-tweeter, and also denied, when presented with the ultrasonics alone, that any sound at all was being played.

    From the fact that changes in subjects’ EEGs “persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation,” Oohashi and his colleagues infer that in audio comparisons, a substantial silent period is required between successive samples to avoid the second evaluation’s being corrupted by “hangover” of reaction to the first.

    The preprint gives photos of EEG results for only three of sixteen subjects. I hope that more will be published.

    In a paper published in Science, Lenhardt et al. report that “bone-conducted ultrasonic hearing has been found capable of supporting frequency discrimination and speech detection in normal, older hearing-impaired, and profoundly deaf human subjects.” [5] They speculate that the saccule may be involved, this being “an otolithic organ that responds to acceleration and gravity and may be responsible for transduction of sound after destruction of the cochlea,” and they further point out that the saccule has neural cross-connections with the cochlea. [6]…

  17. maty dice:

    computeraudiophile.com / Forum 24/192 Downloads … and why they make no sense? blueheronhollow

    Por cierto, en otros hilos indican que la mejor conexión es la HDMI, como es mi caso con el Western y el televisor Panasonic.

    Por tanto, si pensáis en comprar un Receptor AV, conectad todo lo que sea posible vía HDMI.

  18. maty dice:

    computeraudiophile.com 16/44 vs 24/192 Experiment mitchco

    I decided to run a science experiment using Audio DiffMaker to compare 16/44 to 24/192 format of the same master from Soundkeeper Recordings: http://soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

    I have used Audio DiffMaker before to compare FLAC vs WAV: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/FLAC-vs-WAV-Part-2-Final-Results and comparing 2 bit-prefect music players: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/JRiver-vs-JPLAY-Test-Results on my computer audio playback system…

  19. maty dice:

    computeraudiophile.com Listening test – bits and kiloherz Julf

    As some posters have doubted the benefit of resolutions and sample rates higher than 16 bit and 44.1 kHz, I set up a listening test.

    Robert von Bahr of BIS has very kindly arranged for the permission to use a track from BIS-SACD-1949, “endBeginning” by New York Polyphony (available from eClassical).

    I made available 8 versions of the track “Lamentationes Jeremiae – IV. Mem.”. In addition to the original 24/96 track, there are versions that have been first downsampled and/or truncated to various permutations of 96, 48 and 44.1 kHz and 24 and 16 bits, and then upsampled back to original resolution, thus discarding varying amounts of information.

    I asked forum members to listen to the different tracks, and for each, write down a score between 1 and 10 for the sound quality, as well as a verbal assessment of each track, and send me the results in a private message (or by email)

    • maty dice:

      computeraudiophile.com Listening test results Julf

      What is very interesting is that the full set of files has been downloaded 103 times, and the first track 147 times, but only 6 people actually submitted results. What can we conclude from that? That people are shy and are afraid to make a fool of themselves? Or that they really didn’t hear a difference? No way to tell…

      One of the files was of course the original track in 96/24. In this case that was track C

      Los resultados son decepcionantes, máxime cuando es en un sitio donde muchos presumen de DAC muy caros. Deben tener miedo de descubrir que son incapaces de diferenciar, por sus oídos o su equipo o por ambos.

      Para mí, lo importante es que sí soy capaz, y sin necesidad de gastar un dineral. El problema: que vuelvo a necesitar comprar un disco duro externo!!!

      O montar un NAS.

  20. maty dice:

    AudioStream Musical Fidelity M1 DAC (the newer one) Michael Lavorgna, 26.12.2011

    This one is new and improved as of a November 2011 street date namely adding an Asynchronous USB input capable of handling 24-bit/96kHz data and adding $50 to its price tag (the old M1 DAC’s adaptive USB input was limited to 16/48). There are also some minor changes to the choke-filtered power supply but for those users who skip the USB input, the M1 DAC is very nearly its old self…

    The M1 DAC is also of the upsampling variety meaning it takes every incoming signal and converts it to 24-bit/192kHz using a Texas Instruments Burr-Brown SRC4392 sample rate converter before handing off to a pair of Texas Instruments Burr-Brown DSD1796 D/A chips in dual-differential mode

    Días atrás descargué un fichero 24/96 -> 24/192. Para mi sorpresa, sonaba mejor el upsampled. Por supuesto, en unos foros en inglés.

    Ah, sé de uno que acaba de estrenarlo y nota una grandísima mejoría.

    • maty dice:

      El nuevo Musical Fidelity M1 DAC:

      Con ASIO va fatal.

      • Con WASAPI sólo llega a 16/44.

      • Hay que utilizar obligatoriamente Direct Sound.

      Estoy chateando (desde RetroShare) con uno que lo compró días atrás, intentando sacar el máximo partido, junto a sus nuevas columnas.

  21. maty dice:

    Download (reupload 22.04.2012): 119.6 MB

    http://uploadmirrors.com/download/0JCKIOTT/24192-2496-2448-1648-1644.zip

    with new two files in /others:

    • 16192-TPDF-Untitledb-maty.flac

    • 1696-TPDF-Untitledb-maty.flac

  22. maty dice:

    Wikipedia EN Quantization (sound processing)

    24-bit quantization

    24-bit audio is sometimes used undithered, because for most audio equipment and situations the noise level of the digital converter can be louder than the required level of any dither that might be applied.

    There is some disagreement over the recent trend towards higher bit-depth audio. It is argued by some that the dynamic range presented by 16-bit is sufficient to store the dynamic range present in almost all music. In terms of pure data storage this is often true, as a high-end system can extract an extremely good sound out of the 16-bits stored in a well-mastered CD. However, audio with very loud and very quiet sections can require some of the above dithering techniques to fit it into 16-bits. This is not a problem for most recently produced popular music, which is often mastered so that it constantly sits close to the maximum signal (see loudness war); however, higher resolution audio formats are already being used (especially for applications such as film soundtracks, where there is often a very wide dynamic range between whispered conversations and explosions)

    Audacity Wiki Dither

    Dither

    “Dither” is intentional noise which is added so as to randomise the quantisation errors (rounding errors) that occur when downsampling the Bit Depth of an audio stream to a lower resolution than the current format. The dither randomises the “arithmetical carry” on rounding the last bit to be used, rather than creating a repeatable, quantifiable rounding error. In this way the potentially audible distortion problems inherent in downsampling are minimised. The noise itself isn’t audible unless heavily or repeatedly amplified…

    Rectangle dither produces very small amounts of randomization (in the order of +/- 1 bit). The distribution is such that the “dither noise” is approximately white noise.

    Triangle dither produces a similar peak amplitude of noise as Rectangle, but the noise is shaped so that more of the noise occurs at very high frequencies where it is less noticeable.

    Shaped dither has a higher peak amplitude than either Rectangle or Triangle, but the frequency content of the noise is shifted more into the very high frequency range where it is less intrusive…

  23. maty dice:

    I returned to listen to my files, and the best sound are the ones resampling at high frequencies, either 24 or 16 bits.

    My new rating:

    24/192 (original), 16/192 (TDPF), 24/96, 16/96 (TPDF), 24/48, 16/48 (TPDF) and 16/44

  24. maty dice:

    ars technica Does “Mastered for iTunes” matter to music? Ars puts it to the test Chris Foresman

    Apple’s push to increase the quality of songs distributed via iTunes has been formally realized in the company’s Mastered for iTunes program—but does it really make music sound better?

    After our original report on the Mastered for iTunes program, some readers were skeptical that anything could be done to make a compressed AAC file sound comparable to uncompressed, 16-bit 44.1kHz CD standard audio. Others believed users should have access to the original 24-bit 96kHz files created in the studio for the best sound. Finally, some readers suggested that few people can actually tell the difference between iTunes Plus tracks and CD audio, so why bother making any effort to improve iTunes quality?…

  25. maty dice:

    Vinyl rip at 24/96 versus 16/96 (TPDF dither) in old records (before 198x)

    Wikipedia EN Comparison of analog and digital recording

    Analog systems

    Consumer analog cassette tapes may have a dynamic range of 60 to 70 dB. Analog FM broadcasts rarely have a dynamic range exceeding 50 dB. The dynamic range of a direct-cut vinyl record may surpass 70 dB. Analog studio master tapes using Dolby-A noise reduction can have a dynamic range of around 80 dB….

    With 16-bit, the dynamic range is 96 dB >> 70 dB (vinyl).

    Also there is the matter of the microphones of the time.

"Age quod agis et bene agis" - Hagas lo que hagas, hazlo bien

Por favor, inicia sesión con uno de estos métodos para publicar tu comentario:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s