24/96 or 24/19) digital release of DTRW?

[Markus]

Question in the Guy Fletcher forum

Will there be a high resolution (24/96 or 24/192) digital release of DTRW? I believe Tracker’s came about a month after the album was released. Hope that is the same scenario for this one.

Answer by Guy
Yes, there will. I will find out more about that.

[Justme]

That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.
 

[herlock]

That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.

It won't.
Not even Mozart would.
CDs can be made to sound perfect.
44.1khz is enough to reproduce frequencies up to 22.05khz, whereas your ear can't hear beyong 20hkz (most probably way less), you are not a dog.
And 16 bits is enough dynamics (with proper dithering) to reproduce a range from the drop a needle to the noise of a 747 taking off next to you.
"Hi-Res" is bullshit.
So is the so-called superiority of vynil. But at least, vynil has the nostalgia factor and nice 12'' covers going for it.
"High-res" has nothing going for it - neither technically nor emotionally.

[Markus]

So far, I have not heard any recordings in Hi-Res and therefore can not judge it.

[tobi777]

That's some good news. Although I cannot imagine that DTRW would sound any better in Hi-Res.

It won't.
Not even Mozart would.
CDs can be made to sound perfect.
44.1khz is enough to reproduce frequencies up to 22.05khz, whereas your ear can't hear beyong 20hkz (most probably way less), you are not a dog.
And 16 bits is enough dynamics (with proper dithering) to reproduce a range from the drop a needle to the noise of a 747 taking off next to you.
"Hi-Res" is bullshit.
So is the so-called superiority of vynil. But at least, vynil has the nostalgia factor and nice 12'' covers going for it.
"High-res" has nothing going for it - neither technically nor emotionally.

Absolutely!

The reason some vinyl records sound better might be that these releases are not overcompressed due to the loudness war like the CD versions and thus have better dynamics.
The reason many records of today sound so bad is the production and not the format - most people cannot even hear a difference between a MP3 with 320kbps and a CD. How should they notice frequencies beyond the capability of the human ear?
But as long as there are so many people believing this BS like Neil Young's PONO - you can make a lot of money with it...

As Alan Parsons once said: "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment."

[dustyvalentino]

Maybe it's just my set up but I definitely find vinyl to be "warmer" with more MIDs than digital and less sterile.

Plus there's something cool about old records. New records not so much but MK's are just beautiful. Beautiful packaging, labels,inserts etc, they just ooze class. Plastic CD box just ain't the same.

[hunter]

Some useful info on the topic here: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

[herlock]

Some useful info on the topic here: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

Interesting but a bit convoluted: this article also talks about the sampling rate but draws no conclusion from it; it also says that "24 bit only sound slightly better than 16 bit" which is too weak a statement: it just sounds the same.
I prefer this paper, which explains everything very well: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Bottom line, and I am 100% sure of that:
1) Redbook CD resolutions (44.1Khz/16 bits) are enough to have a PERFECT playback, provided of course that the CD was properly mastered an engineered. If your CD does not sound good, don't blame the medium, blame the mastering and/or the engineering of the disc;
2) Neil Young and others adovocate of so-called "high-res sound" are lying to you, or to themselves, or both;
3) Same goes for Vinyl so-called "warmth", only due to imperfections. At least the vinyl has an emotional case going for it: nostalgia, fun, big covers...

[goon525]

Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.

Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.

I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.

[hunter]

Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.

Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.

I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.

How do you subjectively experience that 24 bit is better than 16 bit (honest question)? Is it a lower noise floor? (I'm somewhere in between the subjectivist and objectivist camps as far as all things hifi are concerned )

[herlock]

Funny that Herlock is 100% sure of things which otherwise are controversial. I’d invite him round to show him in my pretty high end system examples of where hi res sounds better than 16/44, but I suspect he has closed ears on the subject so there would be little point.

Can anyone think of another example of a computer standard which was fixed in 1980 and is still valid? More to the point, the reason that many early transfers to digital were disappointing is that they used a brick wall filter to get rid of frequencies above the crucial Nyquist cut-off for 16/44 of 22.05 kHz. This had a serious impact on sound quality. Things are much better now, but there are still issues with the techniques used to filter off unwanted frequencies. It’s much better to use say 96kHz, which takes filtering issues well away from the audible spectrum. Having said all that, I find it easier to tell the difference between 24 bits and 16 than I do the sampling frequency. Incidentally, there’s a good double page spread in HiFi News every month where high res issues are reviewed and analysed.

I realise that most here aren’t terribly interested in this subject, but I can’t let Herlock's ‘100% certainties' go unchallenged. As it happens, I agree with him about vinyl, though it can sound good. But even if he thinks me self-delusional, I hope he agrees I should have been allowed to waste my money on a high res version of DTRW, just as I did with Privateering and Tracker.

-It is not about refuting me, but the two well-documented papers quoted on this thread. I read nothing from you on the 24-bit side...
-I have never said that higher resolutions were not useful for *studio processing*. I said they were useless for *final playback*, which is way different. As explained in the paper I quoted, when recording every instrument on a different track, you may want to record ultrasounds, because when mixing these ultrasounds may interfere and produce sounds in audible frequencies. But during playback of a stereo mix, untrasounds are useless - you are not a dog, so you can't hear them, period.
-I have never said that vynils sound bad. They can sound pretty good (although limited to 60db, even less than 16 bit equivalent). I just said that they did not sound any better.

Sorry to say that I read nothing from you that will change my mind that you wasted your money on a so-called "high-res" system... But you can't fight religious beliefs

[goon525]

I didn’t say I had a 'high res' system. I said I had a high end system, in other words one that is capable of good quality reproduction of music. Good enough, in fact, to be able to differentiate between MP3, CD and higher res on a reasonably reliable basis (the differences between the latter two can be subtle and recording dependent. I listen mainly to classical which, with more realistic recording, can show the differences more effectively. I note that Herlock declines to debate the significance of cut-off filtering, which can be one of the critical weaknesses of 16/44. There’s plenty of scientific evidence for this, and if I have to, I’ll look some up. But I suspect that the two of us will never agree as he refuses to use his ears.

Re Hunter's question on how the differences manifest themselves: it’s not really a significantly different noise floor, at least not heard like that, though there is sometimes more detail observable at 24/96. Generally though, there’s an ease about listening at higher res, a feeling of greater 'certainty' about the sound, greater solidity in the stereo image. I find it makes listening more relaxing. These things can be relatively subtle, but they’re not negligible if you care about sound quality.

If anyone reading this lives anywhere near Guildford, PM me if you’d like a demo. I can limit this to MK's music if preferred!

[herlock]

You know nothing about me, so I'm kind of puzzled that you judge my ears or my will to debate. I am always open to debate, provided it is fact-based...

As you said it yourself, cut-off was a problem of the past, for the first CDs, and higher sampling frequencies are useful... In studio. Once the master is finished in high resolution, "downgrading" it to 16/44 is no problem at all with modern technology. Do you seriously believe that a CD engineered in British Grove Studio would have a cut-off problem ? C'mon ! You talk about debate, but have you read the article I posted, which explains very well how we can today produce perfect CDs ? Reading your arguments I doubt it...

Relax anyway, I am not the least hostile to you ! Point noted about your high-end system, this is a point we agree, a proper hi-fi amplified/set of speakers/DAC matter far more than the playback medium !

One question for you: when you compare 16/44 to higher resolutions, are you comparing the same master ? By introducing a limitation loop on the high-res recording ? It is soooo easy to have a better master on the supposedly better medium, and wrongly conclude that the difference lies on the medium ! The basis of a fair comparison is to change only one factor at a time ! Did you do proper A/B/X double blind tests, as described in my article ?

Cheers man, let's no fight over sound technology, it is not worth it

[goon525]

Truce agreed. And I also agree it's important that you've checked that you're listening to the same master when comparing resolution. Now, I'll get back to my self-delusional high res listening!

[herlock]

Truce agreed. And I also agree it's important that you've checked that you're listening to the same master when comparing resolution. Now, I'll get back to my self-delusional high res listening!

I'll get back to listening DTRW with my plain, ordinary, 80's-ish, outdated, ridiculous, low-res 16/44 deluxe Redbook CD, on my nice LG player, amplifier and speakers - my barbarian's ears are perfectly happy with this