The 2012 Vinyl Re-Issues Were From 44.1khz Source

[Lord Reith]

I also found this very informative article:

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

Key points

16-bit Red Book CDs have a dynamic range of over 96dB.
20-bit digital master tape has a dynamic range of over 120dB.
24-bit modern HD formats have a dynamic range of over 144dB.

The background noise in a normal quiet room is about 30dB.
Early analog master tape had a dynamic range of only 60dB.
LP micro-groove records have a dynamic range of 65dB.
Dolby increased analog master tape dynamic range to 90dB.
The sound of a jackhammer at 1 meter away is 110dB.
The sound of a full orchestra at 1 meter away is 120dB.
Over 130dB causes irreparable hearing loss.
The sound of a jet aircraft at takeoff is 140dB.

"According to the experts that manufacture the finest DAC chips, resistors, and power regulators, there is theoretically no way to make electronics that are capable of discerning greater than a 20-bit resolution (120dB dynamic range). Any company that claims greater than 20-bit resolution from their DAC is simply full of shit. Oh they can decode 24-bits, because 24-bits does exist in software, but the output from their DAC has less than 20-bits of resolution and dynamic range."

"All things being equal, to go from 90dB output up to 99dB, you would need an amplifier with 8 times the wattage and speakers with 8 times the output. To accurately reproduce a recording at 120dB, you would need an amplifier with 1,000 times the wattage and speakers with 1,000 times the output than it would take to reproduce the same recording at 90dB."

"When people claim to hear differences between 16-bit, 20-bit, and 24-bit recordings, it is not the difference between the bit depths that they are hearing, but rather the difference in the quality of the digital mastering. The fact is that even most so-called 24-bit recordings are mastered with less than the 96dB dynamic range of a 16-bit recording (and wisely so).

So what do they do with commercially marketed so-called 24-bit recordings? They simply fill some of the Most Significant Bits (MSB) with 1s and some of the Least Significant Bits (LSB) with 0s to pad the overall volume up to the target level. They could have released a recording of identical performance in 16-bits, but naive consumers insist on 24-bits, so the record companies trick them by centering 16-bits of dynamic range in a 24-bit frame. How silly."

[alphabeatles]

I also found this very informative article:

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

No you didn't, I posted it on page 1, ha!

But I agree, very informative.

[Track06]

Somehow you could get the impression that the creators of the compact disc were no idiots.

[tymime]

I'll always lament that I lost the upper part of my hearing range a couple years ago. I used to be able to hear the dog whistle on the end of A Day in the Life, and I was pretty horrified when I discovered I couldn't anymore. And me a musician and mixer too...

[Vee-Jay]

If I were to change it to 24-bit instead of 32-bit, would it make more sense to format them as FLAC files or WAV? Personally, I prefer FLAC files, but I was attempting to create a quality "Hi-Res" version from my 44.1kHz recordings as best I could.

Yes, flac is better when they're large files. It makes no difference to the sound and most people play flacs anyway so you're saving thema step.

Vee-Jay, web people say (among other interesting things):

"With APE or FLAC, you have a lossless product but it reflects exactly the quality of the source CD, SACD or record."

hxxps://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=119914.0

If you post WAV I say "FLAC you!"

If you post FLAC I say "FLAC you very much!"

Thanks, fellas. This information is priceless. Consider it done.

[alphabeatles]

Hearing test! (test your volume safety and comfort level on the page at 1000Hz)

hxxps://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

I can hear into the high 11,000's (in one ear!). Below that both ears work...

Which means:

"If your hearing can't reach anything higher than 22.05kHz, then the 44.1kHz file can outresolve the range of frequencies you can hear."

hxxps://www.soundguys.com/high-bitrate-audio-is ... eat-16518/

So I guess I can stop wasting my time worrying about hi-res, ha!

In my collection I've decided to go through all the 24/96 files and bring them down to 24/48 – this remains respectful to hi-res without wasting file space and kidding myself like I can hear any difference. So far (and I'm not done yet) I've recovered over 110 GIGs, without deleting anything.

And if Spec is anywhere near accurate, many "hi-res" files are seriously padded anyway.

[Lord Reith]

It's a delicate issue. Hirez has become such a big thing that to even question it risks making you a pariah. But I've consistently found that most of the advocates of hirez don't actually have much understanding of it. They talk about "word lengths" and "resolution" but don't understand that bit depth is only about the noise floor. 24 and 32 bit have an important role in music production, but once you get to the final product there is virtually no recorded music in the entire world that has a dynamic range that even approaches 16 bit, let alone 20 bit. Like I said, if you OOPS the cd s and USB of the remasters together, you get nothing except a little bit of digital noise which is far, far below the noise floor of any sound recording. That is all that is left. No extra treble, no extra dynamics, nothing. Just inaudible hiss at -90db from the cd. Any apparent difference between the two is caused by different listening equipment and playback levels. Even a tiny increase in volume of 2db can make something sound different, so it is very, very easy to be fooled.

The simplest way to be sure in your own mind is just to convert one or two tracks you own from 24/96 hirez to 16/48, keeping exactly the same volume. Then do an A/B using exactly the same playback software and see if you can hear any difference. The worst thing to do is compare a track from two different sources in two different formats, with two different devices. There lies the trap that so many fall into.

[Lord Reith]

No you didn't, I posted it on page 1, ha!

Ha ha! Yeah, I ran out of time and didn't read everything you linked to. I found that on my phone while on the bus!

[Lord Reith]

Hearing test! (test your volume safety and comfort level on the page at 1000Hz)

hxxps://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

I can hear into the high 11,000's (in one ear!). Below that both ears work...

I can just get to 17000 but it's very faint. But what most people think of as "treble" is actually down around 7000-8000. All the frequencies from 10,000 to 20,000 are contained in just one octave - it's the same range as from 1000 to 2000 hz, or 100hz to 200hz. It's a very small range and only contains the "shimmer" in music. I can't even imagine what the octave above that (from 20,000 to 40,000hz) is supposed to sound like. If I had a dog, I would ask him!

[MrMurphMcgee]

Fascinating thread.