It’s the time of year for saving money!
There’s been a small firestorm lately over the posts about how
44.1 Redbook standard format is “better” than 192/24. Here’s the original post,
and here’s some commentary (7 pages and counting) from the Audio Circle site.
My position is simple, as I stated in my title, 192/24 files
sound better than lower resolution files. How do I know? Simple, I’ve done
tests for the last three years. And I will continue to do tests…
My tests are straightforward. I record live symphony orchestra
concerts using a DSD recorder and then using the AudioGate software program
I make copies files at 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/16. After making the transfers I
listen to the different versions. The results have been consistent over several
years of listening – the 192 File sounds the closest to the DSD file and is the
highest fidelity of all the transfers. And how does this added fidelity
manifest itself? The 192 files have the best dimensionality and the most
easy-to-discipher spatial information of any PCM file. When compared to the
44.1 file the 192 file has a much better rendition of three-dimensional space –
Clarinets and Oboes are no longer in each other’s laps as on the 44.1 file, but
instead are sitting next to each other.
Over the years I’ve played my recordings for many manufacturers
and audiophiles. So far, none have found the 44.1 files to be superior.
Of course all my findings have been based on listening, not theories,
but I’m Ok with that.
Now, whether a particular 192/24 commercial recording will
always sound better than it’s 96/24 or 44.1/16 file of the same performance, is
an entirely different question. The results are far more a function of mastering
decisions than the inate properties of the different recording rates.
So, if you believe that 44.1 files can and will sound better
than higher resolution files, make some recordings at different bit rates and
then compare the results. If you do find a set of files where the 44.1 version
is best, send me a your files…I’ll be eager to listen…
lol
Steven says nothing about making his comparisons blind, ie not knowing what he’s listening to. That makes his comparisons scientifically meaningless.
Most people naysay the higher resolution because they can’t afford better equipment. Its a classic sour grapes approach. I have 12 years of blind listening tests to over 2000 recordings, and have experienced the 192 ALWAYS sounds better, 100% of the time.
Sorry losers.
Most people naysay the higher resolution because our hearing range doesn’t go much beyond 20ish kHz.
I for one do not care if my audio files accurately record ultrasound, my dog might, but I don’t.
Nor is any of my expensive audio equipment designed to have ultrasound running trough it, causing annoying and audible artifacts as the system struggles with the noisy input I feed it.
It’s like wanting UV and x-ray channels for video recordings, pure bullshit
Also, people have been running double blind test on the 192 and found that only 50% can identify it over 96, in other words they are guessing.
Isn’t your observation/confirmation bias great?
If you had been successful in life you might be able to afford an education and better equipment, instead of stupid suppositions and name calling.
If You were raised better, You might have the decency to refrain from using your ‘success’ as a club to beat others over the head with, for the opportunity to better themselves that obviously failed You as a human being.
I believe you just shoved you own head up you own backside and jumped to disappear. That doesn’t work, you still just have you head up you ASS.