Downconverting for iPod: should I use the maximal 24/48 or just 16/44?, [was "24bit 96khz conversion, still good?"] Options

[adlai]

So ipods cannot play 24 bit 96khz files.

But they can play 24 bit 48khz files.

Alternately, you could just stick with the 16bit 44khz cd file.

So what would be better, dither down to 24bit/48khz, or stick with the original 16 bil 44khz?

[Porcus]

or stick with the original 16 bil 44khz?

If it was originally at 16/44.1, then why touch it?

[lvqcl]

What is the source of these 24/96 files? DVD? Vinyl rip?

[Nessuno]

So ipods cannot play 24 bit 96khz files.

I'm not sure, but there are good chances it can, especially newer devices, via digital output to an external DAC.

[adlai]

What is the source of these 24/96 files? DVD? Vinyl rip?

vinyl rip.

[adlai]

So ipods cannot play 24 bit 96khz files.

I'm not sure, but there are good chances it can, especially newer devices, via digital output to an external DAC.

it can't. i just tried.

[adlai]

or stick with the original 16 bil 44khz?

If it was originally at 16/44.1, then why touch it?

the optiosn are:

take 24bit/96hz file and downconvert to 48hz file

or

use 16 bit 44hz file.

[saratoga]

I don't know if new iPods resample or not. If they do use 44.1k. If not it doesn't matter.

[adlai]

I don't know if new iPods resample or not. If they do use 44.1k. If not it doesn't matter.

they can play 48hz files. just not 96hz

[pdq]

So you're asking which is better, the CD version or the vinly version? It depends on the mastering, for one thing. If both came from the same master then the CD should be more accurate, but some people prefer the added noise and distortion of vinyl.

In any case, if the 24/96 from vinyl is downsampled to 24/48, or 16/48, or 16/44.1 should make no audible difference.

[saratoga]

I don't know if new iPods resample or not. If they do use 44.1k. If not it doesn't matter.

they can play 48hz files. just not 96hz

I know they can play 48k. What I mean was that I did not know if they resample to 44.1k. If they do, then do not use 48k.

[adlai]

So you're asking which is better, the CD version or the vinly version? It depends on the mastering, for one thing. If both came from the same master then the CD should be more accurate, but some people prefer the added noise and distortion of vinyl.

In any case, if the 24/96 from vinyl is downsampled to 24/48, or 16/48, or 16/44.1 should make no audible difference.

they do sound different though. The vinyl seems lighter, whiel the cd is slightly mroe muffled, though it seems to not have some of the audible quirks of the vinyl

[DVDdoug]

I'd use whatever format you normaly use... Since I've got MP3s on my iPod, if it was me I'd use MP3.

...they do sound different though. The vinyl seems lighter, whiel the cd is slightly mroe muffled, though it seems to not have some of the audible quirks of the vinyl

Choose the one that sounds best to your ear. If you choose the 24/96 file, downconvert it to whatever format you like. As PDQ said, you shouldn't hear any difference as long as you keep it at 16/44.1 or above. Or, put both versins on your iPod if you like!



IMO - 24/96 is total overkill, especially when the original is inferior antique analog vinyl! Some people prefer the sound of vinyl, or you might just prefer the different vinyl mastering on some recordings. But, vinyl can't compete with digital when it comes to technical performance such as noise, distortion, and frequency response.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

So you're asking which is better, the CD version or the vinly version? It depends on the mastering, for one thing. If both came from the same master then the CD should be more accurate, but some people prefer the added noise and distortion of vinyl.

In any case, if the 24/96 from vinyl is downsampled to 24/48, or 16/48, or 16/44.1 should make no audible difference.

they do sound different though. The vinyl seems lighter, whiel the cd is slightly mroe muffled, though it seems to not have some of the audible quirks of the vinyl

One of the problems with this discussion is that vinyl sounds different from vinyl, with the choice of cartridge and some other installation details being important variables.

Back in the days when vinyl was all we had, some of us did some ABXing to see what it took for different cartridges to be indistinguishable in a close comparison:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

There was a fair amount of careful work that was done to make the comparison as close as possible. For example one of the important variables was adjusting the capacitive loading of some of the MM cartridges for flattest frequency response.

How many people do you know who sit down with a test record, some measuring equipment a pile of capacitors and a soldering iron to adjust this parameter?

This contrasts with CD players where you can just plug and play and have a reasonable expectation of identical or at worst nearly identical sound quality:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm and

Stereo Review Magazine "Do All CD Players Sound The Same?" Jan 1986

[2Bdecided]

The poster has recordings from vinyl in 24/96, and wants to know whether to convert these to 24/48 or 16/44.1. Vinyl vs CD discussions are off topic

If your vinyl transfers are peak normalised, it's unlikely you'll hear a difference between 24-bit and 16-bit.

I have no idea if the iPod (or your chosen resampler) behaves better at 48kHz or 44.1kHz. Either is fine with good equipment/resampler, 48kHz is better with poor resampler, whichever the equipment support natively (could be both!) is better for poor equipment.

You haven't mentioned whether you'll be mp3 encoding the result, or loading it up as a lossless file. For mp3 encoding, 24-bit is a better source than (some) 16-bit (but not necessarily audibly so). For mp3 encoding, most encoders are carefully tuned at 44.k1Hz, though 48kHz can work well enough.

So, for mp3 encoding I'd probably go with 24/44.1, while for lossless I would stick with 16/48 or 16/44.1.

I think it spectacularly unlikely that a difference will be audible in any circumstance or comparison, so you might as well do whatever you like, using whatever justification makes you happy.

Hope this helps.
David.

[Brother John]

We’re talking ipod so chances are we’re talking earphones and a casual, noisy listening environment. Doesn’t this make this discussion about possible very minor nuances kind of irrelevant?

I’d spend 5 minutes to google what is more “native” for the ipod – just for the sake of paranoia – and then go for 16/44.1 or 16/48 accordingly.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

We’re talking ipod so chances are we’re talking earphones and a casual, noisy listening environment. Doesn’t this make this discussion about possible very minor nuances kind of irrelevant?

I’d spend 5 minutes to google what is more “native” for the ipod – just for the sake of paranoia – and then go for 16/44.1 or 16/48 accordingly.

..especially when the minor nuances are sitting behind a ton of evidence saying that they don't matter, even under ideal conditions, because the limit to dynamic range in 16 bit recordings is set when someone decides to record real world music in a real world room with a real world microphone.

Anybody who wants to taste-test good modern resamplers or good modern 16 bit digital players needs a TOS 8 wake up call, IMO. ;-)

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Oct 30 2012, 14:54