24 bit 192kHz Music

does anyone ?
can anyone tell the Difference between 16bit44100hz vs 24bit/96kHZ vs 24 bit/192 kHz ?

but morimportantly,
what music is MASTERED at that level ? anyone knw ?

http://dl.nin.com/theslip/signup
In July, 2008, Nine Inch Nails released their album "The Slip" for free, via a CC-BY-NC-SA license. The album was released in multiple formats. the highest-quality version: was
24bit samples, 96khz, encoded using FLAC.
http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_-_Wave_96-24_High_Res.torrent

high-quality MP3s (87 mb)
will play in any MP3 player. encoded with LAME at V0, fully tagged.

recommended for most users.
the files will arrive as a zip archive. in most cases, double-clicking the zip file will open it. if you need more help with zip files, go here.

FLAC lossless (259 mb)
CD quality - will not play in itunes or many other popular media players. (more info)
http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_-_Flac.torrent

recommended only for advanced users.
this link will download a small .torrent file, which you must open with a torrent application in order to download the audio files. visit this site for information about using torrents.

FLAC high definition 24/96 (942 mb)
better-than-CD-quality 24bit 96kHZ audio - will not play in itunes or many other popular media players. (more info)
http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_24-96k_Flac.torrent

recommended only for advanced users.
this link will download a small .torrent file, which you must open with a torrent application in order to download the audio files. visit this site for information about using torrents.

M4A apple lossless (263 mb)
CD quality - will play in itunes. (more info)
http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_-_Apple_Lossless.torrent

recommended only for advanced users.
this link will download a small .torrent file, which you must open with a torrent application in order to download the audio files. visit this site for information about using torrents.

high definition WAVE 24/96 (1.5 gb)
better-than-CD-quality 24bit 96kHz audio (more info)
http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_-_Wave_96-24_High_Res.torrent
for advanced audiophiles only! although you will be able to play these files with most players that support WAVE format, you will not get any benefits from the higher resolution audio unless you have extremely high-end audio equipment. if you're not familiar with 24/96 audio, this download is not recommended.

this link will download a small .torrent file, which you must open with a torrent application in order to download the audio files. visit this site for information about using torrents.

I dont think my audio equipment is up to par to really test this lol. But I do have my ZxR set to 24/192

1 Like

well idk lol
my pc is connected via optical to my yamaha
and after testing my codecs and outputs

this is what windows is set too
i CANT activate wma pro audio for some reason

im going to try to side by side the same track at multiple bit rates from the links above and see if i can tell a diff

Grow old like me and it doesnt matter. I've been using a iPhone 4S for years and it's been great. Im lead to believe they had a good DAC. I tend to only use high bit rate music because space is not really an issue but if you swapped my music out for lower quality I wouldnt know it.

Once a song you love plays it goes moves into my old memories of the song and I remember the tune the lyrics before they play. Thats kinds of how you sing along in a song. It not the quality so much but how it makes you feel.

And NiN rocks I have listened to them for 20 years :)

One last point it might be the quality of the player and the speakers but....Shit hardware will play 192k audio shit anyway. Im no audiophile but.

1 Like

i get the IDEA of the encoding
and i get that humans fq response is like 22k hz

but maybe reproducing audio more minutely like with higher bitrates and fq
will fill in smaller gaps during reproduction
maybe those things in fq that are supposedly out of our hearing range sonically interact in a way that we Can detect ?

Yea I worked at a telco and they picked 64k for voice over phone lines cause human ears and the 22k-24k limit on young ears and voice is much lower frequency than that. I think the goal was x4 sampling speed over the sound aimed at was undetectable from analog..It been awhile.

Once you hit 100k+ You would have to be a Dog or maybe a Bat to know.

thats the common idea,
but what my thinking was, mastering the file at that level,
would enhance the audio data that is WITHIN our 20-20k hz ranges
by playing back a sound thats 192 thousand parts per second vs 44 thousand parts per second

not nessisarily playing back fq ranges Above 22khz
but playing back our 20-20khz with much more inbetween each individual level ?
maybe there are subsounds that are soo short in duration that we cant percive them individually
but somehow bounce off of and interact with eachother
in ways that we can pickup on

not sure im realaying my thoughts properly. hm

Yes. I have in the past.... HOWEVER only if all the conditions below are met:

1) The music was recorded in a professional studio with analog equipment onto either an analog medium or 24/32bit ~ 96-192khz. Basically if it's recorded with a cheap digital mixer running at 16/44.1 then releasing at super high fidelity means nothing without the entire signal chain being sufficient. All DSP being done MUST be running at the same level. These days hipster bands are releasing albums on vinyl like it some high fidelity magic... BUT... their recording signal chain looks like this:

  • Instrument
  • SM58 mic (your classic meh vocal mic)
  • Digital Compresor (ADC in, process, DAC out)
  • Digital EQ (ADC IN, process, DAC out)
  • Digital Mixer (ADC IN, process, process, process, process, DAC out)
  • Digital recorder (ADC in, mastering)

The signal goes through DOZENS of conversions each step it gains some amount of error. I assure you carving it into a vinyl is not going to magically make it sound convincing.

The best albums I've heard were recorded onto analog a long time ago and can now be processed with extreme precision with modern equipment. That's how they're able to get 24bit 96khz samples off of older music. It's also much easier to re-master it coming from an analog storage medium.

2) The music is being reproduced by suitable equipment that is physicaly able to reproduce the audio with such a high level of precision. Cheap ear buds / iphones / even mobo sound cards that "support" it are never going to get you there. You won't here a difference between 16/24 bit with speakers. You just won't. It's not able to reproduce that level of detail. You're only going to hear it with a dual mono, balanced, flagship headphone (>$600 range).

3) The album mastering has been done by professionals that actually know what they're doing. Over sculpting, extreme dynamic compression (volume wars), etc will very much mess things up. If you compare the dynamic footprint of a classic rock album with a rock album these days it's unbelievable how much they crush the dynamic range to make it sound "louder" at the same air pressures.


I've heard several albums that meeting this criteria and I have the hardware to reproduce it. I'm not saying I have super human hearing... (it's average at best)... but I have a TRAINED ear and I know how to pay attention and what to listen for.

HDTracks.com has many great albums that meet this criteria. Fleetwood mac ~ Rumours and Heart ~ Little Queen with the right gear to reproduce it is a very special experience.


Oh, also, I'd just like to say that ney sayers who tout "the human ear can't hear over 20khz anyways, why would it matter?", you're looking at this all wrong. The human ear can't hear over that range, BUT 44.1/96/128/196khz etc isn't about being able to produce that frequency, it's about sample rates. You never push the output frequency to the maximum sample rate, that's when you reach 100% distortion and error. It's a stupid argument. Think about it this way...

Can you see the individual pixels on the screen? 96khz is like 4k while 44.1khz is like 1080p. It's increasing the resolution and thus increasing the clarity. If the clarity is high enough the picture is very convincing.

Saying you can't hear 96khz so why need that rate, is as stupid as saying, if you make every other row of pixels on a 4k screen black/white/black/white it'll just look grey because you can't see the individual pixels. When really we all know that displaying a full resolution photo on a 4k screen is going to look fantastic compared to the 1080p counter part.

/rant

3 Likes

You would hope the master was recorded at a high level lossless and only encoded once. Re-encoding music of audio or video sucks as it's usually lossy encoding.

2 Likes

yeah exactly
the chain of custody for the quality must be perfect at all times,
every handshake you make slops on more digital germs
your quality will Only be as good as the highest quality of Any device that touched your sound
from the time it leaves the artists body till it touches your ears

1 Like

Depends on distance. The rods in your eye can detect a single photon.

1 Like

lol smartass

but yeah, not about reproducing sounds higher than we can hear,
but enhancing the quality of the sounds that we DO

surprisingly, electrostatics arnt that complicated of a tech...
hey @wendell make a video putting together some electrostatic speakers
not too hard honestly

1 Like

well... technically neither are moving diaphragm speakers... :/

1 Like

well, yeah..
butt...

why make a video how too on standard tech when you can have super neat tech instead
?

fyi, that video and the amazon link are the same item

1 Like

I want new tech that has bone transducers on my skull so I can listen to the audio book "How to be a better man" while I sleep....

Elon make it so :)

1 Like

I've always wanted to make my own speakers..... lol

NO, STOP! I'm already in the middle of so many other projects!!! GAAAGHHH!!!

lol

1 Like

honestly its about a 10 step prosess if youve got the materials stacked up.....

1 Like

No sound without movement. Even if it only vibrations

1 Like

your vibrating my funny bone over here

1 Like

It all in good spirit...Im trying to be helpfull but I be cheeky :)

2 Likes