Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 59 conversations about:
JustASnack
41
Jan 20, 2019
bookmark_border
To answer your third question, specifically when it comes to specs with digital music, 16bit sample size and 44.1KHz sampling rate is more than enough. These specs will recreate the original signal perfectly. Whatever you do, don't ever fork out extra money for music with higher specs than those, you will NOT hear an improvement, and whoever tells you that higher "fidelity" music actually does sound better doesn't know what an ABX test is. 16bit sample size is more than enough for basically all recorded music. 24bit will not harm the original signal, but file sizes are larger for no added benefit, so don't bother. Sample rates beyond 44.1KHz will not add more detail to the original signal. Infact, it is likely that sample rates at 88.2KHz or higher might actually introduce unwanted distortion into the signal. So far I've been speaking about PCM files. The question about DSD is still in the air, since it's a completely different way of representing music digitally compared to PCM. I can't tell you which sounds better. Some people swear by DSD, others really can't tell the difference. My advice is that you're covered with PCM. PCM music at the specs I listed above is guaranteed to recreate the original signal perfectly, so I wouldn't really bother with a completely different file format. By all means though, if you happen to stumble upon the equipment, do give it a shot to see for yourself whether you prefer it. (I must add, as much time as I spend listening to lossless music, I personally can't tell the difference between lossless and 320kbps music. Still, with lossless music, I have peace of mind that my source is as close to the original signal as possible. If money is a concern for you, you might want to see if you can hear a difference yourself. If you can't, you might save quite a bit of money on the long run if you only paid for compressed music)
(Edited)
Jan 20, 2019
suquet.paul
27
Jan 20, 2019
bookmark_border
JustASnackMirrors my thoughts exactly. I run a indie record label and recording studio. I own several professional studio monitors, along with professional grade headphones, direct-to-disk records, masters, archival quality tapes and other equipment, and while of course I'll choose to play vinyl records whenever possible; it's mostly for the beauty of it being tactile and an experience itself. The fact that vinyl is a contact-based physical playback media means that what you hear at the moment will never be heard again, as the next time you play it, the sound will be slightly different (not that you'd really notice, but, you'd know). However, the music I bring along with me. On my portable media player (at this point, my phone); and the music I'll play from it in my car; it's all MP3 at 320kbps, 44.1khz (if ripped from CD), or 320kbps @ 48khz (if the source was a vinyl record I dubbed at the studio, or if the source was a flac lossless file at that sample rate), and I've never had a problem with it. I think lossless and higher resolution files are fine, but you'd want to be sitting in the comfort of your couch, with a great setup. A good headphone amp, great headset and the time and patience of paying attention to the details. That's not what portable media players do. So, imho, it's just two different scenarios, and a high quality MP3 is quite good enough for portable, on-the-go music entertainment. As far as Tidal goes... I found that the interface was so bad, and so underwhelming, that I cancelled my subscription and went back to Spotify. Spotify's curated playlists are on fleek for me, and their interface is, imo, the best one (I use a Windows laptop, and an Android phone).
(Edited)
Jan 20, 2019
ko403ok
26
Jan 20, 2019
bookmark_border
JustASnackNone other than Neil Young swears by 24/96, and he records everything with it. As a dyed-in-the-wool CD spinner, I must confess that I haven't tried it...and wonder if I'd hear a difference if I did.
Jan 20, 2019
suquet.paul
27
Jan 20, 2019
bookmark_border
ko403okYeah... I do record everything at at least 24 bits (and mix at 32), 48khz. I've found recording at 96 to be overkill. Specially since I specialize in punk rock. But I do so mostly to have as less loss while mixing and changing mediums as possible. CDs are 44.1 and 24 bit anyway and I do challenge anyone's belief that 96khz makes any difference whatsoever.
Jan 20, 2019
thebigdirt
11
Jan 21, 2019
bookmark_border
ko403okVinyl is for hipster technophobs. CDs are pretty good. 24 96 flac files are the future.
Jan 21, 2019
DanTreview
159
Jan 23, 2019
bookmark_border
thebigdirtWhat cracks me up is when these same hipsters buy vinyl records that were RECORDED DIGITALLY and then claim it sounds better....
Jan 23, 2019
masonservant
10
Jan 25, 2019
bookmark_border
JustASnackHonestly the reason I believe that SACDs sound better is just the superior mastering they tend to have, being a high res counterpart dedicated to high quality audio. The just tend to be held to a higher standard than cd
Jan 25, 2019
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in Audiophile