16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4

[manisandher]

For anyone who is interested:

I've recorded Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out' from vinyl at 16/44.1 and 24/176.4 resolutions. These are separate recordings (i.e. the first was not derived from the second).

At the time of writing, there are 9 downloads left, and they will expire on the 15th of August. You can get them here:

http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=XJRYNNLTBXQOBAJ

Of course, if you do download them, please share your thoughts on how they compare with each other. Is the hires version really better-sounding? Can upsampling make the 16/44.1 version sound better than the native hires? Etc...

Notes:
1) Please disable HDCD encoding in XX - although the 16/44.1 file contains the HDCD flag (actually, so does the 24/176.4!), I haven't used any of the HDCD processes.
[EDIT: This is actually not necessary, as the 16/44.1 file has been saved as a 24-bit file by the recording software. It will be treated by XX as a regular 16-bit file though, and will play back perfectly fine on a 16-bit DAC.]
2) I have NOT applied any sort of DSP on these files to remove noise or pops - you will get a sense of how 'clean' vinyl can sound...
3) This album was recorded in 1959!!! Which means that the copyright has expired (in Europe at least) - this file share is totally legal.

Cheers,
Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

Downloading... I'm a fan of 16/44 rather than upsampled material, but native 24/176.4 is another thing. I'll get back here...

[Calibrator]

I've recorded Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out' from vinyl at 16/44.1 and 24/176.4 resolutions. These are separate recordings (i.e. the first was not derived from the second).

G'day Mani,

I am unable to play back the 176K stuff currently, but I did take this opportunity to compare your 16/44.1 sample to my Columbia 20 bit redbook remaster from 1997 ( 7464-65122-2 )( CK 65122 ) and the first obvious difference was the diminished microdetail ( eg. air flutter ) in the reed from Desmond's sax. It was quite subdued in the vinyl rip. Although your vinyl rip was a lot cleaner than most needle drops I have listened too, it still had a noise floor well above the redbook copy, and that probably contributed to a little of the sparkle missing from the performance I am used to hearing from the album.

I went through an exercise a while back of transferring a number of my old reel to reel tapes to digital and I came to the realisation that whenever an intermediate copy is introduced, it will never be as good as if you used the original master tapes. Your vinyl rip just reinforces that point.

IMHO, needle drops are a worthwhile pursuit if you wish to casually listen to a favourite and often rare and unobtainable album in the car or when mobile, but will rarely equal a redbook CD derived from the same original masters.

BTW, if you enjoy Take Five as a tune in it's right, and I presume you do, Joe Morello released an album called Morello Standard Time in which he plays a very nice rendition. It's released on the DMP label.

Cheers,

Russ

[Marcin_gps]

Mani, XXHE indicates 24bit source file with your 16/44 track.

[manisandher]

Hi Russ,

I have the same CD as you from 1997 (although mine seems to be 01-065122-10). I also have the SACD (7464-65122-6).

A few things:

1) the sax is a LOT hotter on the CD/SACD than my version of the vinyl
2) my version of the vinyl is the single-sided 45rpm, remastered by Bernie Grundman from the original master tapes
3) did you know that your CD is actually HDCD-encoded?

Will definitely look into Joe Morello's 'Morello Standard Time' - thanks for the reference.

Cheers,
Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani, XXHE indicates 24bit source file with your 16/44 track.

Oops, Mani ... True !

Back to the drawing board I guess.

I must say, I already noticed the files beging quite large, saw the minutes not corresponding to that, but never payed real attention to it.

Or was it on purpose ?

Edit : I guess not :

16/44.1 vs. 24/176.4

[manisandher]

Mani, XXHE indicates 24bit source file with your 16/44 track.

You're right!

BUT... it's definitely a 16 bit recording. I've just verified this with RME's Digicheck.

I'm really puzzled why the 24/176.4 file is only 4 times the size of the 16/44.1 file, and not 6 times the size. This implies that the 16/44.1 really is 24 bits!

What's going on???

[EDIT: I attach screen prints.]

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Just saved as 24 bits files.

Ok, as far as I can tell this is totally harmless. Thus, for XXHighEnd it really won't matter, as long as only 16 bits are utilized (and Mani showed just that). The result for SQ would be 100% the same as if it were a 16 bit file.

Peter

[Marcin_gps]

Mani, could you explain why are you playng 16 bit track with 24, actually 32 bit setting? It's pointless IMHO and from my experience it sounds worse.

[manisandher]

I don't really understand what you mean...

I use an RME AES-32 PCI interface to connect to my ADC/DAC. In XX, I have to set the DAC to '32-bit', or else it won't work. As for the recordings - I use RME's Digicheck software. It has just now transpired that this automatically creates 24-bit files, even with a 16-bit input.

In other words, there is NOTHING I can do!!! But I don't think the sound is suffering

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Mani, could you explain why are you playng 16 bit track with 24, actually 32 bit setting? It's pointless IMHO

Of course not ...

and from my experience it sounds worse.

Yea, maybe if your DAC isn't at its best with 24 bits. That can be the case. But I'm rather sure this is not what you mean.

If you think this is so, set your DAC Is to 16 bits, and see what all won't work anymore (this is indirectly what Mani is referring to, but he doesn't get what you don't get ).

I must honestly say, there's nothing much to explain. And/but with that, I can hardly imagine that you don't understand it ...
So, what's up ?

Peter

[manisandher]

Mani, could you explain why are you playng 16 bit track with 24, actually 32 bit setting? It's pointless IMHO and from my experience it sounds worse.

Oh, I see what you mean. For playing back 16/44.1 files, why in the 'DAC Settings' section don't I just choose 'DAC is 16 bits and 44.1KHz', right? Well, this means I can't use AP/PeakExtend or use the XX vol. control (in a lossless way) or play back hires files. Of course, if you don't use these anyway, then I guess you're OK.

Mani.

[Marcin_gps]

Mani, could you explain why are you playng 16 bit track with 24, actually 32 bit setting? It's pointless IMHO

Of course not ...

and from my experience it sounds worse.

Yea, maybe if your DAC isn't at its best with 24 bits. That can be the case. But I'm rather sure this is not what you mean.

If you think this is so, set your DAC Is to 16 bits, and see what all won't work anymore (this is indirectly what Mani is referring to, but he doesn't get what you don't get ).

I must honestly say, there's nothing much to explain. And/but with that, I can hardly imagine that you don't understand it ...
So, what's up ?

Peter

OK, but could you give me one advantage of playing 16bit track with DAC set at 32bits assuming that I don't use volume control, upsamling etc?

This is maybe stupid question, but I'm trying to understand what's going on. If the track is 16bit than other 16bits are just zeroes? What's good with that? For me it's just unnecessary processing for CPU.

[PeterSt]

If the track is 16bit than other 16bits are just zeroes? What's good with that?

Nothing much. But you're asking for the known answer. You know it was a little mistake (by Mani).

OK, but could you give me one advantage of playing 16bit track with DAC set at 32bits assuming that I don't use volume control, upsamling etc?

I can't. So, set your DAC Is to 16.
With a little luck it also plays the 24/176.4.

[pedal]

Dear Manisandher,

All 10 was gone before I got a chance to download it. 
Can you pls make it available one more time? I would LOVE to hear a quality rip of the Take Five LP in 24/176.

Which turntable/playback did you use?

Best regards