Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet (Read 18803 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

My new Squeezebox has a 24 bit DAC and supports native FLAC without using transcoding.  I run a digital output (bypassing the DAC) to a standalone
DAC (an ARCAM 50 with 16bit DAC).  I get marginally better sound with the ARCAM than with the Squeezebox DAC in blind A B testing. 

My question is:  Should I buy FLAC files that have anything higher than 48khz (or 44.1hkz for that matter)  at premium costs or just stick with ripping my CD's to FLAC.
A good example is the latest release of Raising Sand on HDTracks.com that is available in 96/24 format. 

I really don't understand the difference between sample rate and # of bits.

The other parts of the system are NAD C372 integrated amp driving Paradign Studio V.20 version 4.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #1
Yes.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #2
Are you saying that he should get files with higher resolution or sample rate? Why is that?

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #3
That's very helpful

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #4
I would say that there are almost no documented cases where a properly dithered 16 bit 44.1 kHz file was audibly distinguishable from its higher bit resolution or sample rate source file.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #5
Interesting.  That would mean that there is no reason for HDTracks.com to offer a CD in a so-called higher definition format than the CD.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #6
I really don't understand the difference between sample rate and # of bits.

The sample rate is the number of words (samples) per second. The bit depth is how many bits are used to define one sample. Does increasing either or both typically lead to audible differences over CD-quality 16-bit/44.1 kHz for common program material? According to the data out there, no.

As for whether or not having the higher definition download is preferable to the CD-ripped version, that's up to you. Just don't expect there to be any audible differences -- unless they're differently mastered. If consuming drive space is important to you, of course, the former will be more well-suited to your needs

Interesting.  That would mean that there is no reason for HDTracks.com to offer a CD in a so-called higher definition format than the CD.

I'm sure it's helpful from a marketing perspective if nothing else.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #7
OTOH there are many people who encode mp3 to 320 kbps even though they can barely tell them from 128 kbps, because they feel better about it and they have the space. So if you prefer to download the "better" version, then feel free.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #8

Now we're talking.  I'm starting to understand.  Sounds like (no pun intended) that 44.1 khz 16 bit CD recordings are a very fine source for conversion to FLAC for protection of current assets and future investments in a music collection.

In other words, I want to preserve my current collection and acquire new music at the best possible value without losing what the producer wanted to record.

As for the "mastering" comment, I guess if the mastering is done at some 'value' higher than the CD and then you can get your hands on a copy of it for a decent price then you might hear the difference ?


So, let's ask the question again in a different way:    Would you pay a premium for a 96/24 version of the Grammy winning 'Raising Sand"...  a truly wonderful mixture, featuring two great artists of our generation(s) ?




FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #9
Not unless you already know for a fact that you can distinguish 44.1/16 from anything higher in a blind comparison test which is incredibly unlikely. What would be the point otherwise?

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

PS Apologies for the short reply earlier but it was a "Yes" to just converting your CDs to FLAC.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #10
Sounds like (no pun intended) that 44.1 khz 16 bit CD recordings are a very fine source for conversion to FLAC for protection of current assets and future investments in a music collection.

Bingo. The "HD" "formats" may look amazingly attractive on paper, but as far as the human ear is concerned, you're typically just as well off stuffing your hard drives full of amusing cat pictures. Even in the incredibly rare instance in which a difference may be discernible, you stand to gain almost nothing in terms of additional fidelity.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #11
Even in the incredibly rare instance in which a difference may be discernible, you stand to gain almost nothing in terms of additional fidelity.


Nicely put.
Was that a 1 or a 0?

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #12
But this all is correct assuming that audio CDs and HD audio is made from the same source. But what in the case when audio CD is very compressed to sound good on the radio, but HD track are remastered and have more dynamics so it is more pleasureable to listen on your system?
Error 404; signature server not available.

 

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #13
It all depends on what they are doing.
This might be
- having a 16/44.1 recording and upsampling it to 24/96
- having a 1 bit/2.8442Mhz DSD and resample it to 24/96 PCM
- having a 1 bit/2.8442Mhz DSD play it analogue and record it at 24/96
- etc. etc.

Best thing to do: buy the 24/96 of Raising Sand and ABX it with the CD.
Then you have the only truth that matters, your own local one.
Before you do: check if your sound card support this resolution otherwise you are evaluating the resampling of your own audio chain!
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #14
It all depends on what they are doing.
This might be
- having a 16/44.1 recording and upsampling it to 24/96
- having a 1 bit/2.8442Mhz DSD and resample it to 24/96 PCM
- having a 1 bit/2.8442Mhz DSD play it analogue and record it at 24/96
- etc. etc.

Best thing to do: buy the 24/96 of Raising Sand and ABX it with the CD.
Then you have the only truth that matters, your own local one.
Before you do: check if your sound card support this resolution otherwise you are evaluating the resampling of your own audio chain!



I think I will spend the 15 bucks and run the experiment.  Not sure how to ABX it but I'm sure there is lots of info on this site.


FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #16
HDTracks.com might do well to compare the ReplayGain values of their 24/96khz tracks against their 16/44.1 counterparts.  That might at least help to distinguish if the HD tracks are remastered.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #17
If you want a free way to test out the differences between 16/44 and 24/96, Nine Inch Nails has their album "Slip" available for download in FLAC in both formats.  I believe both formats were created from the same master.  Just go to their website and look for the download link

That should be a great way to test out if you can hear the difference.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #18
So, let's ask the question again in a different way:    Would you pay a premium for a 96/24 version of the Grammy winning 'Raising Sand"...  a truly wonderful mixture, featuring two great artists of our generation(s) ?

I wouldn't

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #19
If you want a free way to test out the differences between 16/44 and 24/96, Nine Inch Nails has their album "Slip" available for download in FLAC in both formats.  I believe both formats were created from the same master.

I just checked and that may not be the case. Two of the ten tracks have RG values that are significantly (+/- 1 dB) different. The other tracks may be identical, but you would naturally want to verify that's the case before doing any ABX testing.

Reznor's posted here before (once), so one could theoretically just ask him which tracks, if any, are from identical masters, but odds are it wouldn't garner a response. The alternative would be to simply resample one of the 24/96 tracks down to 16/44.1, but resampling and doing bit reduction on a file which most likely uses aggressively-shaped psychoacoustic dither is something of a no-no and may very well lead to a "false positive" ABX.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #20
Some difference in RG value could be due to the high frequencies that are not in the 44.1 kHz version.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #21
I thought that the RG value was calculated for audio that we can hear, i.e. <= 20kHz.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #22
Some difference in RG value could be due to the high frequencies that are not in the 44.1 kHz version.

They're also quite different in terms of perceivable loudness:

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.1
2009/04/05 13:36:21

File A: M:\Music\Nine Inch Nails\The Slip 24-96\10 Demon Seed.flac
File B: M:\Music\Nine Inch Nails\The Slip\10 Demon Seed.flac

13:36:21 : Test started.
13:36:35 : 01/01  50.0%
13:36:42 : 02/02  25.0%
13:36:51 : 03/03  12.5%
13:37:03 : 04/04  6.3%
13:37:12 : 05/05  3.1%
13:37:19 : 06/06  1.6%
13:37:29 : 07/07  0.8%
13:37:41 : 08/08  0.4%
13:37:51 : 09/09  0.2%
13:37:59 : 10/10  0.1%
13:38:05 : 11/11  0.0%
13:38:14 : 12/12  0.0%
13:38:20 : 13/13  0.0%
13:38:28 : 14/14  0.0%
13:38:41 : 15/15  0.0%
13:38:48 : 16/16  0.0%
13:38:52 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)

Demon Seed and Echoplex are the only two tracks where the loudness is significantly different (in both cases the 24/96 version is louder). The others may very well be from identical masters even though the RG values vary slightly, but I'm not certain.

EDIT: Blatant typos.

FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #23
Whether 96/24 is audible different than 44.1/16 has been discussed extensively on this forum and elsewhere.  You will find a lot of people who say that there is no audible difference, and you will find just as many who say that there is.  Those who believe they can hear a difference usually point out that your equipment needs to be pretty good for you to hear that difference.  I think that it also depends on the type of music, the recording equipment, and the post-recording processing.  Generally, with pop or rock music, it would be very difficult to hear a difference on any system.  With acoustic jazz or classical, if recorded well and processed well, I think that there is an audible difference.  I have several 96/24 bit recordings of classical and jazz music (from HDTracks) that are awesome on my audio system, but very average when played on my computer.

I recommend that you listen for yourself (different types of music) and do your own A/B comparison.

BTW, to my ears there is a huge difference between compressed 320kbs and 128kbs on all music and any system.


FLAC 96khz 24bit files on a SqueezeBox Duet

Reply #24
Whether 96/24 is audible different than 44.1/16 has been discussed extensively on this forum and elsewhere.  You will find a lot of people who say that there is no audible difference, and you will find just as many who say that there is.  Those who believe they can hear a difference usually point out that your equipment needs to be pretty good for you to hear that difference.  I think that it also depends on the type of music, the recording equipment, and the post-recording processing.  Generally, with pop or rock music, it would be very difficult to hear a difference on any system.  With acoustic jazz or classical, if recorded well and processed well, I think that there is an audible difference.  I have several 96/24 bit recordings of classical and jazz music (from HDTracks) that are awesome on my audio system, but very average when played on my computer.

BTW, to my ears there is a huge difference between compressed 320kbs and 128kbs on all music and any system.


You have made a number of claims in your post.  Have you personally done an ABX test of 320kbps vs 128kpbs?  Have you tried to do a volume matched test comparing your computer as a source and your regular source for your audio system?  Is your computer's sound output capable of 24/96 output?

People claim all sorts of stuff.  People claim to that if you have a good enough system there is a night and day difference between cables.  What people claim is not automatically an indicator of what they are actually hearing versus what they think they are hearing.