Yesterday I took a ride on some sites and I saw that "liquid music" has raised its audio quality ... I was left behind ... I was fond of the CD quality ie, 44.1 kHz - 16 bit and 1 '411 Kbps ... I want to try out the 48'000 Hz to 24 bit... And you how do work? Thank you.
I think he want to know what is the difference in audio quality between different bit and speed he mentioned on a website called liquid music, or perhaps liquid music is the marketing term they are using to describe this higher quality music
I read on some articles that "liquid music" (the one that you download from the internet) has a quality above 44.1kHz and 16 bit. I wanted to ask if you too, in your musical works, you have raised the sound quality, for example at 48 kHz 24 bit and if the difference is perceived ... For example I did a test by exporting a few notes of - The Legend - in different formats, and I noticed that the waveform changes. However, at a sound level, I can not perceive a big difference (also because of the quality of my system). I asked you some opinions ... What do you think of the fact that the sample rate has increased ... Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnK8_wEH8l8
Suonoecomputer wrote:I read on some articles that "liquid music" (the one that you download from the internet) has a quality above 44.1kHz and 16 bit. I wanted to ask if you too, in your musical works, you have raised the sound quality, for example at 48 kHz 24 bit and if the difference is perceived ... For example I did a test by exporting a few notes of - The Legend - in different formats, and I noticed that the waveform changes. However, at a sound level, I can not perceive a big difference (also because of the quality of my system). I asked you some opinions ... What do you think of the fact that the sample rate has increased ... Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnK8_wEH8l8
In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Or rather, I should say, it depends on what you're doing and the requirements of your work.
Your bare minimum for delivery is 44.1 kHz / 16-bit (so-called "CD quality"). Anything below that is simply unacceptable. If you're sending your music off to a mastering engineer, they will require it to be 44.1 kHz / 24-bit uncompressed wav file, but you will get it back as a 16-bit audio for distribution. Audio for videos should be in 48 kHz (think streaming services, like YouTube).
Anything higher than that for delivery (final listening), personally, I think it's pointless. 99% of people most likely won't be able to tell the difference.
When it comes to bit depth, the largest dynamic range any digital converter can give you is about 120 dB, which comes to about 20-21 bits. That means, when you play anything, you can't even get the range of a full 24 bit audio. 32-bits, in that regard, seem rather pointless. Though, compared to 16-bit, you will still have a greater dynamic range with 24-bit. In that sense, music might seem more "alive", although I don't really believe that's necessarily true, given that after mastering, both 16 and 24 bit music will, practically, be equally compressed.
As for the sample rate, if you take Nyquist frequency into account, 44.1k perfectly covers the 20-20k Hz range of human hearing. It's basically impossible for anyone to hear anything beyond that.
There are some proponents that claim that frequencies in the inaudible spectrum (ultrasonic, above 20 kHz) can interact with the audible spectrum and basically "enrich" the experience and give listeners more pleasure (Oohashi tests). On the other hand, AES Convention tests, conducted by Laurie Fincham (used to be a research director at KEF Electronics, later came to THX) showed that only a few people of the test subjects were actually able to detect a high pass filter set at 16 kHz, and no one could tell that there was any filter at 20 and 25k. So, take that as you will.
I do have a friend that swears by her Adam A7X nearfield monitors. I haven't heard them personally, but she says that listening on them doesn't cause her ears fatigue and tiredness as much or as fast as some other speakers. It's worth to note that they are rated to have a frequency response from 42 Hz to 50 kHz.
In conclusion: who knows. You will hear contradicting stories everywhere.
Like I said, I kind of have my own set of rules that depend on what I'm doing. I see absolutely no reasons to release my music in 96kHz/24-bit. If I was recording instruments and what not, or do a lot of time stretching, I might be inclined to record in 88.1 or 96 kHz. I'm not sure I'd work with 192 kHz; I think that's a waste of valuable resources. But generally, I'm doing everything in 44.1, though I'll export in 48 kHz if I'm doing it for a video that I'll be posting on YouTube to save time on conversion, and I'll absolutely export in 24-bit for mastering. But that's me.
As for you? I see no reason why you shouldn't up your sample rate to 48 kHz if you want to - that's not so much a big difference (about 1%). Upping the bit rate will also up your file size by about 50%, so that's something to keep in mind. Do I think you, me or anyone else will notice if you go from 44.1/16 to 48/24, even on high-resolution audio systems? No, can't say that I do.
Interesting, thank you very much, you gave me a very comprehensive answer on the subject. I did the test in that video I made, but I also do not feel any particular differences (although I have a very poor sound system ...). I confess that I would have loved to own the Adam (even only 5x) but their price remains unattainable for me ... Lately with my remixes I tend to work with time stretching and tonal changes, so I tried a 48 kHz , but I actually did not notice any particular differences ... Thanks.