Was looking for some classical hi-rez files at qobuz and many of these so called "Studio Masters" are 24/44.1 only. I read somewhere that a studio master download is the highest quality music file available anywhere and that it allows the listener to hear a recording exactly the way the original artist and producer intended it to sound before it was altered to fit on a CD. Labeling 24/44.1 files as studio masters doesn't exactly fit this discreption or are studio's really recording masters at just 24/44.1? Can't be a big difference with CD quality (16/44.1) I think or am I wrong?
Studio Master?
- Thread starter Drikus
- Start date
In my experience the bit depth can have a greater impact on the music than the sampling rate. I'd rather have a 24/44.1 file than a 16/352.8k file.
For years, the label BIS recorded all their classical albums in 24/44.1, so that's the best they have.
For years, the label BIS recorded all their classical albums in 24/44.1, so that's the best they have.
Interesting because I always have been under the impression (from various expert readings, including Bob Stuart from Meridian) that the Frequency Range (sampling rate like 88.2kHz and up) has a greater overall impact where it counts most (human hearing), at rejecting noise higher out of the audio spectrum (harmonic distortion), so that it does not infer (spill) lower into the human range, than the bith depth, like 20-bit is plenty sufficient.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here in my reading's understanding.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here in my reading's understanding.
Last edited:
When I was doing some of the mastering for FIM, a lot of the older titles that went to XRCD were from MO discs. These were 24/44.1 These are some of the best digital I've heard. Compared to the CD, it IS night and day.
The CD is 16/44.1 so yes.
I don't recall 24/44.1 from my music collection. ... 20/88.2 yes, 24/96 yes, 24/192 yes, 16/48 yes, and I would need to check some more for more.
I'm not an expert engineer (studio recording pro), I'm only saying what I read over several years from several well reputable audio mags containing them serious articles.
* Crystal Disc; it is 16/44.1 right?
I don't recall 24/44.1 from my music collection. ... 20/88.2 yes, 24/96 yes, 24/192 yes, 16/48 yes, and I would need to check some more for more.
I'm not an expert engineer (studio recording pro), I'm only saying what I read over several years from several well reputable audio mags containing them serious articles.
* Crystal Disc; it is 16/44.1 right?
That's right. All Redbook spec CD's are 16/44.1 Same for the Crystal Disc
I know a couple labels created SACD's with their 24/44.1 files.
I know a couple labels created SACD's with their 24/44.1 files.
But SACD is not PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) domain, it uses DSD (Direct-Stream Digital) using a totally different algorithm all together.
=> 2.8224 MHz or 64 times the CD audio sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and only 1/16th its 16-bit resolution.
So DSD on SACD is way out there in the Frequency Range (sampling rate), but way below the 16-bit (bit depth); and it sounds excellent (to my old set of ears).
Yeah I know, some of them SACDs were derived from PCM.
You said; 24/44.1 are "some" of the best digital you've heard. Ok, good, and what about 24/88.2? ...Or 24/96? ...Or 24/192? ...Or 32/352?
Me I thought that 20/88.2 or 20/176.4 is all you truly need. ...And if someone wants to add another additional 4 bits to make it 24 I don't have any objection. ...Heck, if 32 is your bag I still don't mind (it does have some advantage in some particular applications, if properly done).
* Some RB CDs were created from 20 or 24-bit (remastered). ...Still 16/44.1 though, just like the Crystal Disc. ...Unless true DSD was used.
...And that your playback device can read it properly and reproduce it too as is (Direct-Stream Digitally). ...From some $100 machine (Sony BD player) up to $80,000 one (dCS).
=> 2.8224 MHz or 64 times the CD audio sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and only 1/16th its 16-bit resolution.
So DSD on SACD is way out there in the Frequency Range (sampling rate), but way below the 16-bit (bit depth); and it sounds excellent (to my old set of ears).
Yeah I know, some of them SACDs were derived from PCM.
You said; 24/44.1 are "some" of the best digital you've heard. Ok, good, and what about 24/88.2? ...Or 24/96? ...Or 24/192? ...Or 32/352?
Me I thought that 20/88.2 or 20/176.4 is all you truly need. ...And if someone wants to add another additional 4 bits to make it 24 I don't have any objection. ...Heck, if 32 is your bag I still don't mind (it does have some advantage in some particular applications, if properly done).
* Some RB CDs were created from 20 or 24-bit (remastered). ...Still 16/44.1 though, just like the Crystal Disc. ...Unless true DSD was used.
...And that your playback device can read it properly and reproduce it too as is (Direct-Stream Digitally). ...From some $100 machine (Sony BD player) up to $80,000 one (dCS).
Last edited:
Didn't know that it could be such a big difference compared to CD. Thx for the info.
Considering 20 bits is already -120 dB, you are rather unlikely to hear the difference between 20 and 24 bits (yes, theoretically 24 bits would be -144 dB, but can you find any source material or system with a SNR better than 120 dB?).
There still doesn't seem to be any solid proof that humans can hear anything much beyond 20 KHz or so, but a higher sample rate does allow you to use less aggressive filters. Designing a filter that brickwalls anything above 22 kHz, but has no audible impact at 20 kHz is complicated. A sample frequency of 96, 88 or even 48 kHz gives you much more leeway with your filtering.
It's 7:00 on a Saturday morning. The AC is not running. There is nothing audible coming from outside. The nearest road carrying any traffic this time of day is a half mile away. I shut the laptop, waited for the the hard drive to stop, held my breath and took a reading.
The noise floor of my bedroom is 40 db.
Make practical applications of such realities to these conversations at your own discretion.
Tim
The noise floor of my bedroom is 40 db.
Make practical applications of such realities to these conversations at your own discretion.
Tim
Is there even any repeatable evidence? And what kind of audible impact at 20kHz are we talking about? And how far down does that impact go?
Tim
I was really trying to avoid controversy by being as careful as I could
. No, I am not aware of any repeatable/verified evidence of hearing anything beyond 20K, and even in the last audible octave, 10-20 KHz, our hearing is pretty bad.
I was really trying to avoid controversy by being as careful as I could
Ah...sorry I blew your cover.
I know my hearing isn't so great above 10k and MIA above 14k. Given that most audiophiles are old men who've spent much of their adult lives listening to huge audio systems at high levels, their fantasies of day and night differences at the edges (and beyond) of human perception are pretty funny.Tim
My questions were directed at Bruce in his sub-forum and have all been answered by him. I dont know you two or what you do professionally, do either of you also own or work at a studio or do you just want to have another endless/pointless discussion between the two of you about what people can or can't hear?
So which studio do you own?
I guess this is the Internet after all. We could of course post pictures of our cats....
None, if you had read the opening post you should have known this, that's why I asked an expert opinion. I don't know you or the other person so I wanted to know if either of you were also experts, that's all. By asking this question you have already given me the answer.
This was not aimed at you because you tried to give Bob some answers but at the other person who felt that he had to hijack this thread with his pointless nonsense.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |