What sounds better than CD quality? CD-A, DVD-A and other formats claim to sound better than CDs.

CD audio files are 16 bit depth at 44.1000 sample rates, the same file specifications as the RealTrack files available in the Audiophile edition of Band-in-a-Box. +++ HD Tracks, com +++ offers audio files created at higher bit depths and / or sample rates.

Are they better? I don't know but you can visit the website, request the free sampler and find out for yourself.

It's a lot like the difference between the regular and audiophile versions of BIAB (of which I've written an article in Tips and Tricks). I can clearly hear the difference between CD and DVD quality audio, but only on a good sound system in a good room. Add an air conditioner, a car outside, the wind, a bass solo, damaged hearing, etc., or play it on a boom box or earbuds or car stereo, and the difference disappears.

I love working in 24-bit audio while mixing, because of the added headroom. The final sound, though, would fool most people in a blind hearing test comparing it to 16-bit. Even more so for 48k sampled audio.

This is one conclusion the article mentions time and time again; the dynamic range 24 bit depth provides versus 16 bit depth is a valuable factor while mixing and helps deliver a better mix but has no affect on the listening process.

I would love to see a double blind study done of randomly selected audiophiles regarding ability to discriminate amongst variable formats and sub-formats. Not just the ability to tell one from another but also the acuity needed to say which one is “best” (meaning meets the technical specs as best quality). Of course when you are reduced to my level of hearing it is a moot issue.

What article? I only saw a vendor's page. Perhaps there is something in the sample kit you mentioned? Thanks.

Sorry for the mix-up Matt. This is what happens when I work on two posts at the same time. +++ THIS +++ is the article I mentioned.

Bud, Tom's Hardware didn't perform a double blind test in the strictest sense. But they did test four different hardware configurations ranging in price from more than $2,000 to less than $2.00. The article is available +++ HERE +++

Thanks for the link which I will soon read. I once read a study that in summary indicated that volunteer auidiophiles were unable to discriminate at statistical significance between a mid line Yamaha amp and an extremely high dollar and well reviewed unit.

This is the most important thing to talk about before even starting a discussion like this. Over on Keyboard Corner, guys post excruciating details about the subtleties of this sound library or that hardware synth but that's not the worst. The worst is the Hammond B3 organ clone fanatics. They go crazy over tiny little details in the sound. Nobody mentions what they are listening through until I, ahem, bring it up. Then we find some are using $50 computer speakers, others are using consumer home theater setups you get at Best Buy, others use their PA speakers like JBL Eons for home monitoring, Roland KC500's etc. All of that totally sucks for trying to test out audiophile level sound. A few though say they have a pair of Genelec's or Adam's or like me an awesome pair of Altec Model 14's that had a list of $2,899 EACH in 1984. I picked them up used several years ago. Those people I'll listen to when they say one thing sounds better than another.

Our long time (and no longer posting) forum friend Mac used to post a lot about this and he also posted details about how he built his own killer speaker systems for cheap. It's usually not cheap to get that sound quality but he was an expert.

Bob

That don't sound right....

Thanks Bob

Ive found the same thing, forums can be awesome or completely confusing, I just decided to get some real speakers, well near field ones and on almost the same posts can hear one speaker is great or tinny and needs to be chucked or cheerished.
I payed attention to posts that actually told u what to look for on the specs and I finnly found a nice cheep pair with no colouration of sound, they r cheep but then my hearing sucks ( worked in construction my whole life).
I think its just a breed of people that need to be right, and only the item they have sounds good and all others r crap.
Guitar pickups, vst soundbanks, headphones etc etc if its subjective they come out of the woodwork. I look now for a post where it starts what u have is probably fine and if u look at the specs for the item it should be in this range

I think good analog with tube gear (and tube saturation) sounds the best.

I have a couple of SACDs that I think sound noticeably better than regular CDs.

But I think that's also impractical for consumers.

My engineering mind says the higher the bit rate of digital, the better reproduction you should get, as long as everything else in the chain is the same.

But (and it's a big but), there is always a point of diminishing returns where the same amount of technical improvement offers less and less perceptible improvement. And that varies from one listener to another.

Another consideration is who are you recording for? If you are recording for the general public, it doesn't matter much. Since I was a child I see the general public's choice was 45rpm records, 8 tracks that sometimes even changed tracks mid-song, cassette tapes, early CDs (which IMHO sounded terrible on the systems of the day) and finally mp3s.

And they listened to them on systems that didn't have the bandwidth to reproduce the highs, lows, and dynamic response. Players with narrow bandwidth circuits, and either tiny, tinny speakers or low-fi earbuds.

Adequate resolution is all you need for that.

On the other hand, we have audiophiles who listen on high-end systems, have trained ears and listen for the sonic quality as much as they do the beauty of the music. You need to get as high up the path of diminishing returns for these people as you can afford to. But admittedly they are a small market.

These are the two extremes, there are many between those points.

And after all that, two sets of ears are not the same. Even if a person's hearing hasn't been damaged, some people just hear better or worse than others. Better frequency response, better perception and so on.

I guess it seems like I'm drifting off topic here, but the point I'm trying to make, is that there is no definitive best for everyone. You need to find what is best for you and your audience.

Insights and incites by Notes

Sorry, I changed that reference to Mac to (no longer posting)

Bob

Thanks Bob (JazzMammal) edited mine as well

Bob (Notes),
I know what you mean. A few years back I spent decent money on a 'more than decent' living room surround system.

Then watched my family/friends plug their phones, ipads or ipods into it (as the source) and proceed to tell me how much they like it or what they didn't like about the system .. <grin>

Yes people care about the song, the words, and as much of the music as they can understand (some more than others), but their point of diminishing returns for fidelity is much lower than mine.

But as long as they are listening and enjoying, it's OK with me.

I never owned an 8 track - what? Change tracks in the middle of a song!!!!!!!!

I had a cassette in the car, but I recorded my own tapes from the vinyl that I bought. And since the early cassette machines not only had low fidelity but also got hungry and ate a cassette every now and then, it was a good move.

I hated the early CD sounds as well, They have made improvements in D-A converters so that although I still think things sound better on a good analog system, I listen to CDs a lot. They are more convenient and there is a different kind of distortion. The LP has pops and clicks but the CD has quantization errors, which is worse? Besides, to listen to a symphony on and LP without flipping the disk in the middle.

Insights and incites by Notes

We're all such insulated geeks.

The average person knows nothing about what all of us obsess over. The bass is slightly muddy, no sizzle in the cymbals, weak stereo field, no depth, the mids need a boost and on and on and on...

Meanwhile they're listening through a $9 pair of earbuds "with bassboost!" they picked up with some ice cream at the drugstore.

Bob

I just read that Toms Hardware article. Nothing new there but it was very interesting. As far as it relates to us on this forum it substantiates what most of us have been saying (and I just wrote) for years.

The number one most important thing is your speakers. The electronics are so good now even the cheapest amps and a PC's onboard soundcard sound so good these expert listeners could not tell the difference between the onboard Realtec chip and high priced DAC's when using high quality expensive headphones.

The related part of this is people keep asking if they need an interface to run the audio out from a laptop to their PA for example. That answer is no but, the key word is output. Not input for recording. A PC's onboard audio is really good to send sound out but the input if you want to record a vocal or instrument is pure crap. Recording and/or playing live through the computer is where you need a good audio interface.

Bob