[Pez]

Just curious. Saw U2 actung baby on HD tracks at 24/44.1 and sort of rolled my eyes. They want $25 for it. 

[ted_b]

Jason,
I often find that the jump to 24 bit is as big, if not bigger, than the jump to a better sample rate, say 96k.  I mean, 24/192 jump is quite good, but 24/44 can be very very good.

[Pez]

I got Radiohead King of limbs in both 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 and I don't detect any difference at all. maybe I'm just not listening close enough or perhaps it's just not done properly I don't know.

[golfugh]

I'll second that!  I have a couple of albums in 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 and the 24 bit ones are better to my ears.
Mark

PS:  the biggest difference to me between the two is a smoothness to the sound, and I have the Radiohead ones you are speaking of.  Again, to my ears....who knows?

[Freo-1]

Jason,
I often find that the jump to 24 bit is as big, if not bigger, than the jump to a better sample rate, say 96k.  I mean, 24/192 jump is quite good, but 24/44 can be very very good.

It makes sense from a math standpoint.  The detail resolved at 24 bits is a lot more than 16 bits. 

[Quiet Earth]

If it is actually being used.

[jamesg11]

With 24/44.1, are we talking hdcd level then, or is hdcd not utilising its 24bit range?

(I recently picked up fleetwood mac live at boston, with hdcd: is this hires?).

[Tyson]

The 24 is the dynamic range, the 44 is the resolution.  Increased dynamic range is not the same as increased resolution.  Therefore I'd say that 24/44 is NOT hirez. 

[firedog]

The increased dynamics of the 24 bit can make a noticeable difference. It enables you to hear small details and intsrumental harmonics (extremely low and high frequencies that enable us to differentiate different instruments playing the same note) that are present on the recording but difficult to hear otherwise.  An instrumental harmonic or something like the reverb tail of a cymbal could be recorded at 36 db lower level (or even lower) than the loudest sounds on the recording.  Something like that will be quantitized using only 10 bits on a 16 bit recording, but with 18 bits on a 24 bit recording.

24 bit detail also aids in hearing things like dimensions of recording space.  So a 24 bit recording should sound a little fuller and more like hearing music as it is when heard in a real space.

As an example, I can tell the difference in blind testing between the 24/44 and 16/44 versions of the Beatles remasters. Is the difference dramatic? No. Do I think the 24 bit version sounds slightly, but noticeably better? Yes.

[django11]

You guys made me look this up.
From wikipedia :"In digital audio, bit depth describes the number of bits of information recorded for each sample. Bit depth directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample in a set of digital audio data. Common examples of bit depth include CD quality audio, which is recorded at 16 bits, and DVD-Audio, which can support up to 24-bit audio."

So from that definition anything 24 bit is high resolution or hi-rez.

A  "bit" more:"A set of digital audio samples contains data that, when converted into an analog signal, provides the necessary information to reproduce the sound wave. In pulse-code modulation (PCM) sampling, the bit depth will limit signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). The bit depth will not limit frequency range, which is limited by the sample rate."

And just to contradict Tyson
:"Dynamic range is the difference between the largest and smallest signal a system can record or reproduce. With the proper application of dither digital systems can reproduce signals with levels lower than their resolution would normally allow.[6] Therefore there is not a direct connection between bit depth and dynamic range."

[ted_b]

The 24 is the dynamic range, the 44 is the resolution.  Increased dynamic range is not the same as increased resolution.  Therefore I'd say that 24/44 is NOT hirez.

Tyson, 24 is NOT the dynamic range.  It is the bit depth.  44 as in 44.1k, is the sample rate.  Togther they describe the amount of data involved in the recording.  This is usually manifested as better resolution, etc.  My point all along has been that a greater bit depth allows for better headroom and overall sonics.  I'm not sure why you wouldn't call it hirez, but any 24 bit recording can certainly be discussed in this Circle. 

[zybar]

Just curious. Saw U2 actung baby on HD tracks at 24/44.1 and sort of rolled my eyes. They want $25 for it. 

I pre-ordered the 16/44.1 version from Amazon for $20.36.

I would have rolled the dice and paid a few extra bucks for the 24/44.1 version.  Too bad I didn't know about it in advance. 

George

[jtwrace]

I pre-ordered the 16/44.1 version from Amazon for $20.36.

I would have rolled the dice and paid a few extra bucks for the 24/44.1 version.  Too bad I didn't know about it in advance. 

George

I think you can cancel pre-orders from Amazon. 

[zybar]

I think you can cancel pre-orders from Amazon.

I received it on Tuesday (the day it released) - before I even knew about the HDtracks version.

George

[Quiet Earth]

I would say that you guys are splitting hairs. For example;
 

24 is NOT the dynamic range.  It is the bit depth.

a greater bit depth allows for better headroom

  These are very closely related aren't they?

I think everyone agrees that the more bits that are available the better the opportunity to capture all of the headroom, or whatever else you would like to call it. But whether or not all of those bits are actually needed for the final mixdown of the master is probably a different story. How many bits do you think you really need to capture all of the headroom  of Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones? Bet you could do it with less than 16 if you had access to the analog master.

[Quiet Earth]

Also, I wonder if a 24 bit capable DAC just sounds better when it is given a 24 bit word, even if the music in that 24 bit word does not utilize all 24 bits?

Does that make any sense? .

Just thinking out loud......

[Pez]

So I did actually listen to the King of Limbs 24/44 vs 16/44 and at first I thought 'meh, they're pretty much the same' then I realized I made and error. I was listening to 24/44 FLAC vs 24/44 WAV.  this whole time I was comparing these two thinking the FLAC was 16/44. So I found the actual 16/44 version and it was night and day. Sorry for doubting any of you! 

[Soundtrackmixer]

Contrary to what Wikipedia says, I do not consider 24/44.1 to be high resolution. The bit depth only answers the dynamic range of the program material. However, the sample rate address the resolution of the system. The higher the sample rate, the more snapshots taken of the analog signal, the more resolution you will hear.