24/44.1 = High Definition ???

[Sal1950]

So what's with all the 24/44.1 files that have appeared on HDTracks and elsewhere? They're selling for the premium prices normally reserved for the higher data rate files. Where are they coming from? Do you believe they should command the higher pricing, etc ? What are your thoughts on this members, is this just the latest snake-oil scam on music buyers? Mark Waldrep where are you when we need ya? LOL

 

[Atanasi]

There are different definitions. The common Hi-Res Audio sticker requires at least 24 bits at 96 kHz, or some corresponding DSD format. I think up to 48 kHz and 16 bits belong to the standard definition. 24 bit at 44.1 kHz is borderline.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'd call it He-Res.

High enough resolution.

 

[JaccoW]

It looks weird but it is higher-res than 16/44.1. CD quality at a decent enough bitrate when lossless.

I've seen plenty of 24/96 files that didn't show any data above standard 16/44.1 at a much bigger filesize.



EDIT: With a very simple hearing test over a pair of PreSonus Eris 3.5 monitors I can hear up to 16,500Hz. I should probably do a double-blind test with a hi-res file and lower frequency conversions.

 

[Midwest Blade]

I thought 16/44.1 was the demarcation line, anything above can be called hi res. Therefore 24/44.1 could be called hi res. Check out Mark Waldrep's lecture on YouTube.

I am firmly in the 16/44.1 is good enough.

 

[Anonamemouse]

So far, since the birth of the compact disk, not a single recording has been made that actually rose above the 16/44,1 norm. Sony and Philips did a fairly decent job.

 

[Mnyb]

Yea bit depth is an "improvement" inside the audio band higher frequency does nothing for us per nyqvist etc etc

 

[freemansteve]

So far, since the birth of the compact disk, not a single recording has been made that actually rose above the 16/44,1 norm. Sony and Philips did a fairly decent job.

"not a single recording has been made"?
Do you mean the masters, stereo mix-downs or physical CDs themselves?
What about masters still done on tape - how do they fit in? Or SACDs?

Are you saying that >16/44 is never needed or never used anywhere in the process?

 

[daftcombo]

Are you saying that >16/44 is never needed or never used anywhere in the process?

It can be needed if you plan to work the files in a DAW, but not for playback listening.

 

[freemansteve]

I don't disagree that 16/44 is fine for consumer playback, I was not sure about the (not well-defined) statement "not a single recording has been made that actually rose above the 16/44,1 norm"....

And even then, where would that leave SACDs? (not that I have any or care about them).

 

[Midwest Blade]

I should clarify my 16/44.1 is for playback. Recordings should be made in as high a resolution as possible. I have tried the resolution hearing tests and the most recent one by Mark Waldrep, I hear absolutely no difference between standard (16/44) and hi res.
I think Sony and Phillips had already figured this out when they came out with the compact disc.

 

[freemansteve]

Aha! With you now....
I record 24/96....
When I send samples to friends of what I have done, 320 MP3 are fine as compact mix-down.
We are all old and deaf from watching too many bands and playing loudly....

 

[tomtoo]

Not that i think that more than 44/16 is needet for playback. I realy would wish 24/96 gives the new standart. Thats so far from our hearing posibilitys that i realy hope, all this discussions would have a end.

 

[Ricardus]

I record at 24/48. If I ever do a major label project that demands 96k, fine, I will. But 48k is fine.

 

[shal]

Aha! With you now....
I record 24/96....
When I send samples to friends of what I have done, 320 MP3 are fine as compact mix-down.
We are all old and deaf from watching too many bands and playing loudly....

I do exactly the same.
I record my own concert in 32/96. Why 32 ? Because my sound devices MixPre 10II have a special mode for avoid any saturation even the level is too big. The result is a 32bit file but it's not realy 32bit of resolution (it's 24).
After I cut my record in different file (one for each track) in 16/44.1.
And I use lame ("lame --preset cd " to be exact) and I sends to other musician the zip of mp3

Yesterday , We play Dancer in the Dark of Bjork .

Look the dynamic :

 

[danadam]

Yea bit depth is an "improvement" inside the audio band higher frequency does nothing for us per nyqvist etc etc

Why Nyquist? Rather human physiology.

I realy would wish 24/96 gives the new standart. Thats so far from our hearing posibilitys that i realy hope, all this discussions would have a end.

Ah... an optimist I don't think it would be hard to find comments about how DSD 1024 or PCM 768 kHz sounds better than anything else.

 

[Mnyb]

Why Nyquist? Rather human physiology.

Exactly that actually, a delivery sample format of 44.1 kHz do preserve all frequency resolution we humans need ( per Nyquist theorem ) .

More bits has a theoretically better signal noise ration , it could have an application and possibly be heard by humans under some condition , not theoretically impossible as preserving more ultrasound in the recording

 

[SuicideSquid]

So what's with all the 24/44.1 files that have appeared on HDTracks and elsewhere? They're selling for the premium prices normally reserved for the higher data rate files. Where are they coming from? Do you believe they should command the higher pricing, etc ? What are your thoughts on this members, is this just the latest snake-oil scam on music buyers? Mark Waldrep where are you when we need ya? LOL

The "HDCD" format that never really took off was 20/44.1. The number of circumstances in which you'll be able to hear a difference between the same master at 16/44.1 and 24/48 or 24/96 are extremely limited - I'm skeptical you'd ever hear a difference between a 20- or 24-bit file and a 16 bit one at 44.1kHz, but as said above, anything above 16/44.1 seems to qualify as "high-resolution" or "high-definition".

 

[Vincent Kars]

24/44.1 files

24 bits at 44? Lets hope and pray this is not music quality annihilated also know as MQA

 

[krabapple]

So far, since the birth of the compact disk, not a single recording has been made that actually rose above the 16/44,1 norm. Sony and Philips did a fairly decent job.

If you mean no recording has ever been release that had recorded content above 22kHz, you're wrong.

If you mean, no one ever needed that content on a release, because they can't hear it anyway, you're right.