24/96 FLACs are a fraud

[kjf]

Bit depth translates to dynamic range, not absolute volume. 24 bit is no louder than 16 bit. See my above post.

What actual volume level 0 dbFS translates into is determined by the system used to reproduce it at that moment.

[tuffgong]

Why do people use 24/96?

I think, like so many other things, people assume "bigger is better". Yes, 24/96 serves a purpose used with the right masters/music and by recording engineers who know what they're doing. However, more often than not, I'll see files uploaded here at TPB in 24/96 that were sourced with inferior vinyl equipment. 24/96 won't fix what isn't there. The source and playback gear define the listening experience. Most 24/96 files are simply a waste of HD space. Its like, "mailing a letter in a refrigerator box to be sure it doesn't get any creases." Love that analogy....

[bubanee]

Tuffgong, that makes sense

say a 16 is a small room with 5 people singing all crammed up compared to a 24 large room with the same 5 people with room to move.

Bit depth translates to dynamic range, not absolute volume. 24 bit is no louder than 16 bit. See my above post.

What actual volume level 0 dbFS translates into is determined by the system used to reproduce it at that moment.

the stair case comment. so each step more or less has the same volume 'limit' basically more room to play with when creating a master.

so i'm guessing it would sound louder as there is more steps used when needed. i.e

1 clap by one person won't sound louder than 2 people clapping even they both clapped exactly the same level. so basically it's more room to work with music without going over the limit mark of 0. so going from 24 to 16 to a CD won't be much different because there's still plenty of steps at 16. I think i'm getting it.

Interesting stuff, personally i think a CD is good enough for my ears anyway

and as for the 96 it's just a buffer to capture all the high end stuff. so wouldn't something like 16/48 be absolute plenty for the average listener. even though up to 24khz would be more for atmosphere feeling and less distortion of those say 18khz up to 20 or so. A roll off effect? compared to the standard of 22.1khz which i think is plenty anyway as i am not a Dog and the levels of sound wouldn't be that high in volume anyway.. So now i'm telling myself that 16/48 and that would be DVD Audio is way more than enough for the basic listener with the basic set up.

[tuffgong]

Bubanee.... if those 5 people needed the room. If they had incredible range and the architect knew how to construct the perfect home for them.... yes, a larger room makes sense..... but not always. Love your analogy too.

[bubanee]

Bubanee.... if those 5 people needed the room. If they bad incredible range and the architect knew how to construct the perfect home for them.... yes, a larger room makes sense..... but not always. Love your analogy too.

it's an interesting subject all this, one area that's totally new to me really this vinyl racket.

[connor17]

A good article about PONO:

https://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/0...oing-pono/

Here is an extract of a comment of a reader:

DAVEMarch 23, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Reply
EXCELLENT post John. I agree whole heartedly. The entire premise behind Pono is all marketing fluff and nonsense. There is not “30x” more musical information in HR files than MP3s. High-res DOES NOT automatically equal great sound. That’s like saying that the best digital camera you can buy is that Nokia phone that has 41 megapixels. A Nikon D4S has only 16 megapixels. What a joke! The Nokia has almost 3X more megapixels, therefore its pictures will look 3X better than the Nikon! Bigger numbers mean better than smaller numbers!

This is insane, and the fact that some audiophiles and industry writers are defending it is pathetic. The Pono store is not a reissue label like Analogue Productions or Music Matters that have done the brilliant sounding Blue Note reissues. The Pono store, exactly like HDTracks, will get whatever the record companies choose to give them. Which is very likely to be terribly mastered, dynamically compromised garbage.

The quality of the recording and the engineering behind it are EVERYTHING. That’s essentially ALL that matters. Audiophiles may not like to admit it, but whether the format is CD, SACD, HR PCM, or even vinyl, is basically irrelevant. Well engineered recordings sound good. Badly engineered recordings sound bad. Period. There is plenty of “audiophile 24/96″ on HDTracks that sounds like crap. They also have some recordings that sound phenomenal. The high res packaging has NOTHING to do with it.

[Q91]

not read the whole thing yet, but this quote owns ;P

Are you not concerned that if Neil ***** pushes too hard with Pono (and misses) it will only cement further the public perception that audiophiles are a bunch of idealistic weirdos who listen to nothing but old man music? I am.

[cakemafia]

hmmm... ok here goes.. please read carefully as this is the definitive answer for the 24/96 business once and for all

i've been taking music production classes for a while to setup a home-recording studio and this is what i've learnt from books and experience (and also from being as a musician and someone with common sense)

the human ear can hear the range from 20hz to 20khz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#Humans) which covers a fairly good range of sounds.. now some people have a affinity to certain ranges of sounds.. for example, a bass guitarist usually picks up a bass guitar as he has an affinity to the lower register for some reason and the violinist picks up a violin as he has an affinity to the higher register.. its pure nature...

this affinity of ours helps us develop our ear towards a certain range of sounds.. for example a viloinst will sense slight differences in sound of higher registers while will find it hard to sense differences in the lower register since his ear may not be well developed for the lower registers and the vice-versa applies for the bass guitarist...

Now comes the case for file-formats.. without getting technical.. a CD gives 16bit / 44.1khz recordings which coer the entire range of the human ear and is enough for the human ear of majority of the human population...

the next recording setting is 24 /96 and then 32/128 and i think 32/192...

now here's the truth.. there is a slight difference between the lossless and lossy formats when they're ripped from cds

i'd like to recall the examples of the violist and the bass guitarist and i would like to add the normal person who has no affinity to any registers....

the normal person will not hear any difference between the 320kbps and the CD flac as his ear is not developed.. period.. that's it.. no discussions.. over

the problem arises when we take musician into the picture.. what happens is with the mp3 is that during the compression some of the content is thrown out and it is usually trimmed at the extremes of the human ear range hence normal folks won't sense it.. now a violinist will immediately sense it if and only if there are parts of the music piece that contain high overtones and the bass guitarist if the track contains low overtones as their ear is developed to here that...

this will not happen with a cd 16/44.1 as there is no loss and hence is perfect quality

now getting to the topic of the thread

24/96 is the stupidest thing to hit mankind

the ear just doesn't have the capability to hear this.. not the human ear.. the max a human ear can handle is 16/48.. anything above that is overkill...

this is just a gimmick for music production companies to make producers update their ridiculously expensive equipment time and time again

i have recorded my instrument at various settings and found that i too find it hard to sense the diff between a 320k mp3 and 16/44.1 CD flac.. although for recording purposes its best to use a higher range as someone else with a developed ear may be able to hear the difference so most of the home producers like me use 16/48 to be on the safe side

after this explanation i'd like to conclude by saying that 24/96 is CRAP!!

---

after posting this i forgot to mention the amazing vinyl debate.. the vinyl simply accentuates the mid range registers so people think its better.. its not.. its the same.. its just that when u play a vinyl.. that material or something in the whole system ( i can't seem to recall what exactly) of the vinyl sound processing accentuates the mid range which makes them think their hearing something new... which is not the truth..

its simply cos the CD doesn't accentuate any frequencies.. its all there you just don't hear it.. and with the vinyl with the mid range being accentuated you start hearing things... that's it

[Q91]

cake: so, all it takes it playing around with a frequence settings on your audio system and you can emulate an vinyl 'feeling'? Too badh audiophiles will still complain.

[tuffgong]

Please keep in mind these very objective facts.

A 16-bit sample width can capture 96dBs of dynamic range
A 24-bit sample width can capture 144dBs of dynamic range

It's rare to find an album that has greater than 20db's of dynamic range. Look here: DYNAMIC RANGE DATA BASE

A 44.1kHz sample rate captures up to a 22.05kHz frequency
A 96kHz sample rate captures up to a 48kHz frequency

What is the frequency range of musical instruments? Here is a great chart to look at: INTERACTIVE FREQUENCY CHART

Yes, OVERTONES extend those fundamental frequencies but you would need very very good playback equipment that would resolve those frequencies, a set of ears that could discern them and a brain that knew how to listen for those musical differences.

Ultimately most recordings can't make use of the additional dynamic range or frequency response of 24/96 and most people who listen to music wouldn't know how to tell the difference if there was one.

/off topic

after posting this i forgot to mention the amazing vinyl debate.. the vinyl simply accentuates the mid range registers so people think its better.. its not.. its the same.. its just that when u play a vinyl.. that material or something in the whole system ( i can't seem to recall what exactly) of the vinyl sound processing accentuates the mid range which makes them think their hearing something new... which is not the truth..
its simply cos the CD doesn't accentuate any frequencies.. its all there you just don't hear it.. and with the vinyl with the mid range being accentuated you start hearing things... that's it

I'm sorry cakemafia, but you are so completely wrong... read HERE for how analog and digital sound really differ...

cake: so, all it takes it playing around with a frequence settings on your audio system and you can emulate an vinyl 'feeling'? Too badh audiophiles will still complain.

Q91, the only way to get a vinyl "feeling" is to listen to a turntable. THESE are some great vinyl rips made with really good gear by someone who knows what he's doing if you want to give a listen. Enjoy....