Where can I find 24bit/96Khz music? I see this as the limit of sound quality for many sound devices, like CDJs and etc.
But where can I get tracks with this quality?
I can't seem to get nothing higher than 16bit/44,1khz at beatport.
I'm just curious, I know I won't hear the difference with my headphones or speakers. |
Edwardo Rothenberger
23.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
10hz-20hz
Do you know that 10-20khz are not a frequencies that are well produced on vinyl?
Often -6db/Oct filters are used when cutting, if there is any meaningful Hi frequency, in order to reduce top end distortion on playback and to stop the cutter head overheating and tripping the cutter amps. Additionally similar hi pass low-end filters are used, since very low frequencies take up a lot of space, therefore having to reduce the cut level. Additionally high level low frequencies can make the playback stylus jump out the groove if not cut deep enough, since very low bass cuts grooves that swing out, just as a low frequency sine wave is bigger than hi frequency. So you can understand the need for filtering. Additionally stereo bass is a problem and will make the cutter head stylus cut deep and then shallow, which will make the playback jump. Bass can be mono'd, usually everything under 150hz, if it's a problem, or under 300hz if it's a particular problem.
Ultimately, 10hz is inaudible, and then it starts to be felt, more than heard. Cutter heads have an ACL (acceleration limiter) which limits high frequencies. The higher the frequency the more it limits, for the reasons stated above.
I would say 30hz-16khz is a more realistic frequency range you have on vinyl. Too much very low bass makes for a woolly cut, by adding a hi pass filter at around 20-40hz it can make the bass a lot punchier and cleaner |
Nancey Inderlied
23.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by M.Beijer
in my couch a 96/24 master file of dire straits - brothers in arms sounds different from a WAV file of the album release, in a positive way.
However there is recordings circulating which is just a lesser quality file made into a 96/24 and it will obviously sound the same as the original file. I will not say that everyone should be able to tell the difference, but if you have some good revealing gear most people will be able to. Im not all that mucked up about filequality, this is just what i have heard myself because i was curious about it. I still listen alot to mp3 and even radiostations of lesser quality.
The difference is in the mastering, not in the physical limits of the file specifications. |
Mimi Mahaffee
22.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
No, there really isn't a huge difference, at least one brought on by the bitrate or sample rate. The difference between bitrates literally has nothing to do with sound quality, and cannot be heard by human ears anyway. While a high sample rate only has one specific purpose on one specific part of the digital chain. Both are literally a waste of space otherwise.
in my couch a 96/24 master file of dire straits - brothers in arms sounds different from a WAV file of the album release, in a positive way.
However there is recordings circulating which is just a lesser quality file made into a 96/24 and it will obviously sound the same as the original file. I will not say that everyone should be able to tell the difference, but if you have some good revealing gear most people will be able to. Im not all that mucked up about filequality, this is just what i have heard myself because i was curious about it. I still listen alot to mp3 and even radiostations of lesser quality. |
Nikole Resende
22.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by keithace
a friend made a transmission line subwoofer capable down to 18 mhz. Definitely felt it.
Ok, so we give the poor man one finger back. I'll just keep the other ones on ice until systems like that become commercially available on a large scale (and get installed in clubs). |
Margie Pavell
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by TCMuc
This, plus I'm quite sure a man who had both his arms cut off will be able to count the number of sound systems that can reproduce these frequencies with his fingers.
a friend made a transmission line subwoofer capable down to 18 mhz. Definitely felt it. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
The OP is confused. He's arguing two separate (but unrelated, in this case) issues: the "superiority" of 24/96 music versus 16/44.1, and the "superiority" of vinyl versus digital.
If you believe vinyl "sounds" superior, that's great, and it is subjective. But its pleasing sound has nothing to do with the original post about 24/96, or with "extra frequencies".
24bit is already solved.
Vinyls, in the other hand, are creating a lot of polemic |
Nikole Resende
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
I doubt anyone is cutting off <20Hz specifically for CD and not for vinyl. The range is inaudible, so it is removed when the track is mastered.
This, plus I'm quite sure a man who had both his arms cut off will be able to count the number of sound systems that can reproduce these frequencies with his fingers. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range.
I didn't said its uncapable. I said vinyl offers more. If people who produce dont add 10hz-20hz frequencies to CD quality audio then they are only on vinyls. Its not my fault.
I don't create my own CDs and Vinyls, I play the digital tracks i buy and the vinyls I bought, and they have differences, which in my opition tend to make the vinyl a better reproducer. |
Alphonso Deitchman
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
10hz-20hz
Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by TCMuc
What?
Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't?
10hz-20hz |
Nikole Resende
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality.
What?
Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't? |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.
Clean is not a synonm to quality.
Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality. |
Nancey Inderlied
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by DJSigma
That's not why it was chosen at all.
Uhh, actually, yes it was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz
16 bit was the choice because 8 bit wasn't technically sustainable without compression, and 24 bit gives literally enough dynamic range to kill you.
There are no absolutes when talking about lossy compression.
Assuming the file isn't excessively reencoded, yes, there are. A proper compression with a modern method only shaves off the inaudibles out of an uncompressed recording.
Obviously, this is technically untrue by the very nature of it being called "lossy" compression. As for whether it's true when it comes to the listener and perceived quality differences, you simply cannot generalise on that.
This is why the word "lossy" makes people annoyed. "Lossy" refers to the process of discarding data that isn't needed in the file to reduce the pre-compression size. By the very definition of the format nothing important is kicked out. The only time anything of value is lost in lossy compression is when an already compressed file is repeatedly expanded re-compressed an absurd amount of times, with each time the algorithm shaves off the "edges" so to speak, until the file degrades. This doesn't happen unless you're purposely trying to degrade a signal. |
Lina Rawie
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.
Even that isn't something that can be said in absolute terms. |
Delena Katherman
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
Vinyls are useless?
I'm done here
He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording. |
Edwardo Rothenberger
23.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
10hz-20hz
Do you know that 10-20khz are not a frequencies that are well produced on vinyl?
Often -6db/Oct filters are used when cutting, if there is any meaningful Hi frequency, in order to reduce top end distortion on playback and to stop the cutter head overheating and tripping the cutter amps. Additionally similar hi pass low-end filters are used, since very low frequencies take up a lot of space, therefore having to reduce the cut level. Additionally high level low frequencies can make the playback stylus jump out the groove if not cut deep enough, since very low bass cuts grooves that swing out, just as a low frequency sine wave is bigger than hi frequency. So you can understand the need for filtering. Additionally stereo bass is a problem and will make the cutter head stylus cut deep and then shallow, which will make the playback jump. Bass can be mono'd, usually everything under 150hz, if it's a problem, or under 300hz if it's a particular problem.
Ultimately, 10hz is inaudible, and then it starts to be felt, more than heard. Cutter heads have an ACL (acceleration limiter) which limits high frequencies. The higher the frequency the more it limits, for the reasons stated above.
I would say 30hz-16khz is a more realistic frequency range you have on vinyl. Too much very low bass makes for a woolly cut, by adding a hi pass filter at around 20-40hz it can make the bass a lot punchier and cleaner |
Nancey Inderlied
23.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by M.Beijer
in my couch a 96/24 master file of dire straits - brothers in arms sounds different from a WAV file of the album release, in a positive way.
However there is recordings circulating which is just a lesser quality file made into a 96/24 and it will obviously sound the same as the original file. I will not say that everyone should be able to tell the difference, but if you have some good revealing gear most people will be able to. Im not all that mucked up about filequality, this is just what i have heard myself because i was curious about it. I still listen alot to mp3 and even radiostations of lesser quality.
The difference is in the mastering, not in the physical limits of the file specifications. |
Mimi Mahaffee
22.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
No, there really isn't a huge difference, at least one brought on by the bitrate or sample rate. The difference between bitrates literally has nothing to do with sound quality, and cannot be heard by human ears anyway. While a high sample rate only has one specific purpose on one specific part of the digital chain. Both are literally a waste of space otherwise.
in my couch a 96/24 master file of dire straits - brothers in arms sounds different from a WAV file of the album release, in a positive way.
However there is recordings circulating which is just a lesser quality file made into a 96/24 and it will obviously sound the same as the original file. I will not say that everyone should be able to tell the difference, but if you have some good revealing gear most people will be able to. Im not all that mucked up about filequality, this is just what i have heard myself because i was curious about it. I still listen alot to mp3 and even radiostations of lesser quality. |
Nikole Resende
22.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by keithace
a friend made a transmission line subwoofer capable down to 18 mhz. Definitely felt it.
Ok, so we give the poor man one finger back. I'll just keep the other ones on ice until systems like that become commercially available on a large scale (and get installed in clubs). |
Margie Pavell
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by TCMuc
This, plus I'm quite sure a man who had both his arms cut off will be able to count the number of sound systems that can reproduce these frequencies with his fingers.
a friend made a transmission line subwoofer capable down to 18 mhz. Definitely felt it. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
The OP is confused. He's arguing two separate (but unrelated, in this case) issues: the "superiority" of 24/96 music versus 16/44.1, and the "superiority" of vinyl versus digital.
If you believe vinyl "sounds" superior, that's great, and it is subjective. But its pleasing sound has nothing to do with the original post about 24/96, or with "extra frequencies".
24bit is already solved.
Vinyls, in the other hand, are creating a lot of polemic |
Delena Katherman
21.12.2013 | The OP is confused. He's arguing two separate (but unrelated, in this case) issues: the "superiority" of 24/96 music versus 16/44.1, and the "superiority" of vinyl versus digital.
If you believe vinyl "sounds" superior, that's great, and it is subjective. But its pleasing sound has nothing to do with the original post about 24/96, or with "extra frequencies". |
Nikole Resende
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
I doubt anyone is cutting off <20Hz specifically for CD and not for vinyl. The range is inaudible, so it is removed when the track is mastered.
This, plus I'm quite sure a man who had both his arms cut off will be able to count the number of sound systems that can reproduce these frequencies with his fingers. |
Alphonso Deitchman
21.12.2013 | I doubt anyone is cutting off <20Hz specifically for CD and not for vinyl. The range is inaudible, so it is removed when the track is mastered.
Either way, it's not an advantage of vinyl as CD is just as capable at reproducing low frequencies. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 | There is no point discussing this, its subjective, nobody will convince nobody.
For me vinyls are warm and have much more "soul" than digital audio.
If anyone believes the oposite, you are right for yourself. Thats sbjective |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by makar1
Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range.
I didn't said its uncapable. I said vinyl offers more. If people who produce dont add 10hz-20hz frequencies to CD quality audio then they are only on vinyls. Its not my fault.
I don't create my own CDs and Vinyls, I play the digital tracks i buy and the vinyls I bought, and they have differences, which in my opition tend to make the vinyl a better reproducer. |
Alphonso Deitchman
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
10hz-20hz
Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range. |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by TCMuc
What?
Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't?
10hz-20hz |
Nikole Resende
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality.
What?
Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't? |
Vikki Falkenrath
21.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.
Clean is not a synonm to quality.
Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality. |
Rolanda Clodfelder
20.12.2013 |
It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.
That depends on the audio source, with modern synths / soft synths / drum machines it won't be a the cleanest recording as the source material is already 100% digital, however with live instruments/vocals, assuming analogue is used throughout the entire signal chain it should by its very nature be a more true representation of reality than recording digitally as there is no A/D or D/A conversion involved. But then you are into an argument on old technology being set up 100% correctly to allow this perfect recording to happen in the first place
Assuming the file isn't excessively reencoded, yes, there are. A proper compression with a modern method only shaves off the inaudibles out of an uncompressed recording.
And if a new track is correctly mastered for digital MP3/AAC distribution those inaudibles will not be present in the uncompressed Wav file either - just more empty zeros taking up space and a 1:1 match to the lossless recording. |
Nancey Inderlied
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by DJSigma
That's not why it was chosen at all.
Uhh, actually, yes it was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz
16 bit was the choice because 8 bit wasn't technically sustainable without compression, and 24 bit gives literally enough dynamic range to kill you.
There are no absolutes when talking about lossy compression.
Assuming the file isn't excessively reencoded, yes, there are. A proper compression with a modern method only shaves off the inaudibles out of an uncompressed recording.
Obviously, this is technically untrue by the very nature of it being called "lossy" compression. As for whether it's true when it comes to the listener and perceived quality differences, you simply cannot generalise on that.
This is why the word "lossy" makes people annoyed. "Lossy" refers to the process of discarding data that isn't needed in the file to reduce the pre-compression size. By the very definition of the format nothing important is kicked out. The only time anything of value is lost in lossy compression is when an already compressed file is repeatedly expanded re-compressed an absurd amount of times, with each time the algorithm shaves off the "edges" so to speak, until the file degrades. This doesn't happen unless you're purposely trying to degrade a signal. |
Alphonso Deitchman
20.12.2013 | The absolute most accurate version of the recording would be the mastered track before it's downsampled and dithered. Besides that, digital sources like CD and MP3 are the closest you'll get. |
Lina Rawie
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by jdownesbaird
but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.
Even that isn't something that can be said in absolute terms. |
Delena Katherman
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
Vinyls are useless?
I'm done here
He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording. |
Lina Rawie
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
What people don't seem to accept is that CD quality was chosen to be beyond the limits of human hearing
That's not why it was chosen at all.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Except for the fact that you really can't.
There are no absolutes when talking about lossy compression.
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality.
Obviously, this is technically untrue by the very nature of it being called "lossy" compression. As for whether it's true when it comes to the listener and perceived quality differences, you simply cannot generalise on that. |
Vikki Falkenrath
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Well yeah, vinyls are completely useless, thats why they aren't in regular commercial circulation anymore. The vinyl "sound" doesn't come from superior technical quality, it actually comes from a certain kind of inferior quality. The "warmth" perceived in sound is the result of analogue systems not being able to reproduce a signal accurately, but in a different way to a digital system's lack of horsepower. Digital distortion in this case comes from quantisation errors and poor sampling, analogue "warmth" is just the same effect, but along a continuously variable analogue
Uhh, no, the human body reacts to music through the auditory system, which has extremely well documented limits. Buying $10,000 worth of "audiophile grade" gear
doesn't give you a sixth sense that lets you detect the "airiness" of a signal.
Also no, what I'm saying is on point with the state of the art since digital technology was pioneered. And you only need a basic understanding of audio technology to get that. It's just superstition, lack of understanding, and disposable income that perpetuates the absurd myths and dogmas.
Vinyls are useless?
I'm done here |
Nancey Inderlied
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Daniboy
Interesting.
So believeing like that I can say that vinyls are useless as "superior sound quality deliverers" as the difference between CD quality and vinyl quality is not audible.
Well yeah, vinyls are completely useless, thats why they aren't in regular commercial circulation anymore. The vinyl "sound" doesn't come from superior technical quality, it actually comes from a certain kind of inferior quality. The "warmth" perceived in sound is the result of analogue systems not being able to reproduce a signal accurately, but in a different way to a digital system's lack of horsepower. Digital distortion in this case comes from quantisation errors and poor sampling, analogue "warmth" is just the same effect, but along a continuously variable analogue signal.
Just because something is not audible it doesnt mean you can't feel it.
The human body reacts to music much beyond to what just the brain can process in a concious way.
Uhh, no, the human body reacts to music through the auditory system, which has extremely well documented limits. Buying $10,000 worth of "audiophile grade" gear
doesn't give you a sixth sense that lets you detect the "airiness" of a signal.
Your whole argument is going to the exact oposite way of the state of the art. To have the basis to assert that you must be graduating on music college or completing some master degree, so you can make a scientific argument out of that.
Also no, what I'm saying is on point with the state of the art since digital technology was pioneered. And you only need a basic understanding of audio technology to get that. It's just superstition, lack of understanding, and disposable income that perpetuates the absurd myths and dogmas. |
Vikki Falkenrath
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by Shishdisma
Except for the fact that you really can't. Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality. There's a whole market for 1411kbps because CDs exist, and CDs just happen to be 1411kbps. "Audiophiles" simply shit themselves any time the word "compression" is involved, even though about 99% of commercial MP3s are only encoded once, and have to justify thousands of dollars in sound gear
they can't physically hear the limits of.
Interesting.
So believeing like that I can say that vinyls are useless as "superior sound quality deliverers" as the difference between CD quality and vinyl quality is not audible.
Just because something is not audible it doesnt mean you can't feel it.
The human body reacts to music much beyond to what just the brain can process in a concious way.
Your whole argument is going to the exact oposite way of the state of the art. To have the basis to assert that you must be graduating on music college or completing some master degree, so you can make a scientific argument out of that.
Just saying the whole music industry is wrong is something very easy to do. I want you to prove me that lossless is simply MP3 with 6x more useless data. |
Nancey Inderlied
20.12.2013 |
Originally Posted by 3heads
My post wasn't directed at you, but rather at Daniboy who seems to believe both signify the same thing, which they don't
They actually do kind of mean the same thing, one is a function with the other as a component. What people don't seem to accept is that CD quality was chosen to be beyond the limits of human hearing, and that modern compression methods don't really lose anything outside of excessive recoding. Good luck convincing "audiophiles" that CD quality isn't peasant level, inferior to the bigger numbers of SACD...
Originally Posted by Daniboy
who says I don't know what bit rate is?
I said I can hear the difference of quality between tracks with different bit rates. Am I the first person you meet to say it? There is a whole market for 1411kbps tracks..
Except for the fact that you really can't. Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality. There's a whole market for 1411kbps because CDs exist, and CDs just happen to be 1411kbps. "Audiophiles" simply shit themselves any time the word "compression" is involved, even though about 99% of commercial MP3s are only encoded once, and have to justify thousands of dollars in sound gear
they can't physically hear the limits of. |
