+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: 16 versus 24 bit files

  1. #11
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: http://www.homehifi.co.uk

    Posts: 6,288

    Default

    There are not many sites that have a reasonable enough info about the bitrate and sampling frequency of the various album releases. The one I tend to refer to is avaxhome.ws . Ignore the info from the ones that people have ripped. The ones to consult for info are the official digital releases. I wasn't aware that so many old vinyl cuts can now be had in 24 bit digital files.

  2. #12
    Join Date: Nov 2012

    Location: Lampeter, Ceredigion

    Posts: 82
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    24 bit 44.1 and 48 are IMHO not worth anything over normal 16bit CD quality. It's only when the sampling rate increases to 88.2 and above that I think you start to get a worthwhile improvement. I don't normally buy anything less than 88.2, except normal 16bit CDs.

    - Richard.
    Pioneer N-50; Lakewest MDAC Premium Fusion; Benchmark AHB2; Quad ESL 2805s; 2xAE subwoofers; Isotek GII Sigmas

  3. #13
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 9,139
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    The problem with many of these threads about 24/192 stuff sounding better than 16/44.1 is that the files used are not from the same master.
    All observations made are therefore invalid, and no conclusion can be sensibly arrived at.
    Such comparisons are like comparing apples with oranges.

    Try downsampling a 24/192 file (or 24/96 - whatever) down to 16/44.1, and then start comparing the two - it isn't difficult to do - you'll find that there's a lot less difference in sound quality between the two files.
    And you'll at least be comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  4. #14
    Join Date: Jan 2011

    Location: Eastern, US

    Posts: 1,869
    I'm afesteringvinylphile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    The problem with many of these threads about 24/192 stuff sounding better than 16/44.1 is that the files used are not from the same master.
    All observations made are therefore invalid, and no conclusion can be sensibly arrived at.
    Such comparisons are like comparing apples with oranges.
    For a "real world" comparison of resolutions, one needs to obtain/borrow a high res recorder with premium media (master tape dub ala Tape Project or mint condition 60s to 70s vinyl, for instance) and make your own copy to 16/44.1 and 24/192. Having done this many times, I can certainly say the comparisons, observations and conclusions are very telling. 24/192 is the closest I've heard to the analog input signal, distancing 16/44.1 by a large and noticeable margin, 24/44.1 slightly (but definitely not worth converting all my CDs / I'd rather use an upsampling DAC). I would imagine 5.6MHz DSD to be just as good, possibly better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    Try downsampling a 24/192 file (or 24/96 - whatever) down to 16/44.1, and then start comparing the two - it isn't difficult to do - you'll find that there's a lot less difference in sound quality between the two files.
    And you'll at least be comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
    That doesn't make much sense to me. Downsampling high res removes data from the file and negates the gains, right off. I don't see the point in making a comparison after that; akin to dubbing a master tape to worn 8-track. What's the point?
    Lyrics are the ramblings of man, sometimes inspired by The Creator, most often, not.
    But music (melodies, harmonies, rhythms), that's God stuff.
    Always was. Always will be.


    One of the biggest lies ever told was that only certain kinds of people should listen to certain kinds of music.

    (silent) VINYL LP SLIDESHOWS

  5. #15
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 9,139
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WOStantonCS100 View Post
    For a "real world" comparison of resolutions, one needs to obtain/borrow a high res recorder with premium media (master tape dub ala Tape Project or mint condition 60s to 70s vinyl, for instance) and make your own copy to 16/44.1 and 24/192. Having done this many times, I can certainly say the comparisons, observations and conclusions are very telling. 24/192 is the closest I've heard to the analog input signal, distancing 16/44.1 by a large and noticeable margin, 24/44.1 slightly (but definitely not worth converting all my CDs / I'd rather use an upsampling DAC). I would imagine 5.6MHz DSD to be just as good, possibly better.





    That doesn't make much sense to me. Downsampling high res removes data from the file and negates the gains, right off. I don't see the point in making a comparison after that; akin to dubbing a master tape to worn 8-track. What's the point?
    That's all well and good, but you don't think that a record company goes to the effort of recording at different resolutions for different formats, do you?
    They don't, they have the studios number crunch things down.

    As for upsampling, how can you add data that isn't in existance at the start point.
    All that upsampling can do at best is add loads of redundant zeros.
    The additional bits might fool the logic cicuit of a DAC into using a different output filter, but nothing more.
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  6. #16
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: http://www.homehifi.co.uk

    Posts: 6,288

    Default

    We seem to be drifting off a bit here. My question was with regards to 16 versus 24 bits. I have intentionally left out comparing sampling rates. Otherwise we have two variables to deal with, namely bitrate and sampling rate. It's difficult enough as it is for many to distinguish between the two. Putting both of them into the mix so to speak only helps yo muddle the waters.

    What I have been able to hear is a larger dynamic impact with 24bit. I can also hear more clarity in low level signals. The most appropriate test for this is live sessions with people talking in the background. Murmurs in 16bits tend to turn to understandable speech with 24bits.

  7. #17
    Join Date: Mar 2008

    Location: Halifax, UK

    Posts: 1,399
    I'm Nick.

    Default

    Yep, I have found very similar things Stan. When I was messing around with passing signals through programmable logic on the way to DAC's it was easy to change the bit depth of the data on the way through. it was easy to hear the difference (with my kit in informal listening conditions) to at least 18/19 bits, beyond that I was guessing. Should be simple enough to take 24bit WAV files and filter them into 16,17,18 and so on bit versions without altering the sample rate. I have some code somewhere that I can stream a wav file through that would let that happen.Anyone got a 24 bit WAV file we could use as a test?

    Though we would have to decide if we wanted to add dither that matched the bit depth.
    Nick.

  8. #18
    Join Date: Apr 2011

    Location: Kingston, Surrey, UK

    Posts: 774
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    I'd agree that 24 bit files do seem to reveal better low-level detail, and I notice ambience cues and reverberation more distinctly. Not a HUGE difference, but noticable,

    Nick/Stan, that is an interesting idea - you would ideally have different audio signals such as speech combined at differnent levels,say -40db, -60db, which are then truncated to different bit depths and then padded into a 24bit format to see how integlligability is affected by reducing the bit depth. Is this easily achievable?.

    A controlled test of this sort would help weed out the influence of the mastering/production chain.

    In terms of what I have noticed, I personally think you are into rapidly diminishing gains beyond 24/48. I have done some testing with downsampling with dither via DBPoweramp DSP, resampling a 24/192 recording from 2L to 24/96, 24/48, 24/44.1 and finally 16/44.1. No ABX or anything, but I couldn't tell the differnece between 24/192 and 24/96, 24/48 still sounded practically the same, 24/44.1 was a little worse and 16/44 was noticably different. Not a really big differnece between any of the 24 bit format.

    Regards,
    Alex
    Technics SL1210| Jelco SA-750| Benz Micro ACE SM MC| Squeezebox Touch/MCRU linear PSU | Cambridge Audio 851C | High Resolution Music Streamer II+ / Linestreamer+ | Raspberry Pi 2/IQ-Audio DAC+ / Max2Play | Conrad-Johnson ET3 Control Amplifier| Conrad-Johnson LP125sa KT120 Power Amplifier| Avalon NP Evo 2.0 Speakers| Cardas Audio Quadlink-5C Speaker Cables and Interconnects| Finite Elemente Pagode Signature E-14 equipment support

  9. #19
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: fuck off

    Posts: 2,033
    I'm fuckoff.

    Default

    Kind of on topic, I bought the Keith Greeninger DSD recording from Blue Coast recordings yesterday.

    The first thing I noted was how well recorded it was; it was very "quiet", which actually translates into dynamic. Theres some music I wouldn't turn up past 20%, this comfortably gets up to 70%.

    As for other SQ observations, it's very immediate and full, yet completely unforced in terms of presentation. Full of nuance.

    I don't have any 24/192 music though, will explore more in future.

    I do agree with Chris (Strat) there's an awful lot of apples getting compared to oranges here.

  10. #20
    Join Date: Nov 2012

    Location: Lampeter, Ceredigion

    Posts: 82
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    The problem with many of these threads about 24/192 stuff sounding better than 16/44.1 is that the files used are not from the same master.
    All observations made are therefore invalid, and no conclusion can be sensibly arrived at.
    Such comparisons are like comparing apples with oranges.
    Well, not entirely. If you listen to enough hi-res recordings and enough CDs it's possible to form a judgement about whether there is a tendency for hi-res to sound better.

    - Richard.
    Pioneer N-50; Lakewest MDAC Premium Fusion; Benchmark AHB2; Quad ESL 2805s; 2xAE subwoofers; Isotek GII Sigmas

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •