Can you hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files?

[elcorso]

I think the problem is not the difference between 16 & 24 bit recordings. To my ears and system do exist, and large, mainly on dynamic contrast and better definition in both extremes of the frequency content: low bass & very high frequencies (I'm not talking about more, but better). The hard to find are good recordings where this difference can be noticed!...

 

Curiously, or not so curiously, on extraordinary good recordings you could believe you don't need more than 16/44, but with some extraordinary DACs when yo go to higher bit & sample rate recordings you get the musical heaven: very close to life unamplified music listening.

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

Normal people don't use phrases like Ad hominem in everyday speech or on forums, and your average person on the street wouldn't know WTF you were talking about if you did. Even most doctors write prescriptions in plain language these days, not a language from centuries ago.

It just highlights the gap between stuffy Academics , some of whom suffer from a huge superiority complex , and normal people.

 

I come here to read intelligent opinions expressed in an intelligent way by intelligent people. If I want to hear "normal" people talk, I'll watch reality TV.

[kumakuma]

It's Dynamic Range (R128) you should be looking at to determine the required bit-depth, not Dynamic Range (DR) which is not actually a measure of dynamic range at all - that's a measure of peak-to-loudness ratio.

 

1 LU = 1 dB. 6dB = 1 bit.

 

This is a weighted measurement though, between the 10th and 95th percentile, so you do require more dynamic range than it suggests, but based on the R128 values, nothing in my library should even come close to requiring 16-bit.

 

The highest R128 value I have is 27.5 LU (<5 bit)

Less than half a percent of my library has an R128 value greater than 12 LU.

 

 

And Dynamic Range (DR) values are not valid for vinyl rips, so higher numbers do not necessarily mean that the vinyl rip is a better source.

 

 

Thanks for the additional information. It is quite useful. The Dynamic Range (R128) values for the six songs are identical for both the 16-bit and 24-bit versions.

 

BTW, when I mentioned my preference for the vinyl rip, I was simply referring to the fact that it sounds better than the other versions I have in my library.

[DigiPete]

You do NOT need a sampling frequency that is 6 times higher than the highest frequency to reproduce. Mathematically, a good 2 times is enough and practically 2,5 times is enough to avoid most of the undesired effects of real-world low pass filters.

 

In other words, 48KHz is ok for audible frequencies and 192KHz is more than enough for up to 50KHz signals. 44.1KHz is a bit tight, often leading to compromises in the filter design.

 

Regarding 16 vs 24 bits per sample, really good DACs can use approximately 20 bits.

 

In my opinion, 24 bits / 48 KHz is great for reproducing the audible frequencies as faithfully as possible, while 24 bits / 192 KHz gives ample headroom to include ultrasonic harmonics and other higher frequency content. Personally, I'm fine with faithful reproduction up to 16 KHz - don't hear much beyond anyway ;-)

 

 

Well put & all I wanted to say in less words.

Thanks!

[dyohn]

I respect Gordon Rankin (and I own two of his DACs) but he can be a bit too tweaky for my scientifically trained brain.

[dyohn]

I respect Gordon Rankin (and I own two of his DACs) but he can be a bit too tweaky for my scientifically trained brain.

 

Post in wrong forum. Sorry. And for the record, I've compared 16 bit and 24 bit versions of the same track and cannot hear any difference even on my highly end 2-channel system.

[soss]

Please note that this is all just for fun, I am a fan of hi-res downloads myself.

However, these results should make us all wonder and take the audiophile myths a little bit softer

 

 

If you are a fan of hi-res files like you say, what is left to wonder? You can either discern differences or you can't. What difference does make in regards to what others can or cannot hear???

[Paul R]

OMG, Nyquist's theorem was wrong...

 

Nyquist or more correctly, Shannon was certainly right. That does not mean that the way some folks interpret the theory in regards to audio is correct though. 16/44.1 -perfect audio forever!

[beetlemania]

"Can you hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files? "

 

Yes, I can. I proved it to myself using the Foobar comparator.

 

I cannot, however, reliably distinguish 44 from 96 and, even, 192 kHz.

[wgscott]

My stuffy academic brain is unable to comprehend your normal person Latin.

 

 

As Sandy K. Alex woud say: (grin)

[testikoff]

"Can you hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files? "

 

Yes, I can. I proved it to myself using the Foobar comparator.

 

I cannot, however, reliably distinguish 44 from 96 and, even, 192 kHz.

 

An ABX test report(s), please...

[EuroDriver]

"Can you hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files? "

 

I cannot, however, reliably distinguish 44 from 96 and, even, 192 kHz.

 

Me neither, which why I think if you record in PCM, you better do it at 384 in order to compete on SQ with DSD64

[mav52]

I would rather just have a good recording regardless of format or bit rate. After all I listen to music not each individual bit separated and played on it's own .

[Allan F]

I would rather just have a good recording regardless of format or bit rate. After all I listen to music not each individual bit separated and played on it's own .

 

Granted that the quality of the recording is more important than format or bit rate. However, given a good recording and DAC, a hi res version can be expected to produce music with superior sound quality to the Redbook version. I leave it to my DAC to deal with the individual bits and listen to the analog output.

[ringenesherre]

Who cares about Nyguist, who is often used to justify an invalid argument on audio perception.

 

The brick wall filter and any analog filter that follows 2X destroy phase coherence and simply

produces the digitis SQ of PCM replay.

 

6X is much better; 8X better still

 

Care to substantiate your claims? When using a decent DAC and ADC, you have a nearly transparent loop - even at 16/44.1:

 

Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

 

The results diff down to -77db for the best DAC/ADC loop. I personally doubt that there can be anything audible that far down, in particular when only going the DAC part of the loop.

[Leonardo Piras]

If you are a fan of hi-res files like you say, what is left to wonder? You can either discern differences or you can't. What difference does make in regards to what others can or cannot hear???

 

I can't hear any difference between 16 and 24 bits.

Higher sample rates are different. In my opinion, native 96+khz stuff retains the "guts" of non-upsampled PCM music, while allowing for more efficient filtering.

[EuroDriver]

You do NOT need a sampling frequency that is 6 times higher than the highest frequency to reproduce. Mathematically, a good 2 times is enough and practically 2,5 times is enough to avoid most of the undesired effects of real-world low pass filters.

 

In other words, 48KHz is ok for audible frequencies and 192KHz is more than enough for up to 50KHz signals. 44.1KHz is a bit tight, often leading to compromises in the filter design.

 

Regarding 16 vs 24 bits per sample, really good DACs can use approximately 20 bits.

 

In my opinion, 24 bits / 48 KHz is great for reproducing the audible frequencies as faithfully as possible, while 24 bits / 192 KHz gives ample headroom to include ultrasonic harmonics and other higher frequency content. Personally, I'm fine with faithful reproduction up to 16 KHz - don't hear much beyond anyway ;-)

 

I know that's what the theory states, however practical experience should always be the guide especialy in Audio. There are necessary assumptions which are part of the theory, but some of these assumptions, may not fit the transient nature of audio signals. I really do not know enough about DSP, so I am downloading a text and will study

 

Here is a quote of a recent post by John Westlake who has designed quite a bit of well reviewed gear

 

pink fish media - View Single Post - MDAC First Listen (part 00100000)

 

 

Interestingly, a very good musician friend who hates PCM digital recordings of his own work - says that only at 352.8KHz does PCM start to sound realistic...

 

He has proven over and over again that he has very good ears - at his studio recently we listen to Master tape played back directly and PCM192 ADC / DAC loop-back... its was not even funny how poor PCM 192 sounded compared to the Master tape...

 

The really odd thing is that 8 Track 2 Inch master tape does not measure that well, but still PCM192 was not able to reproduce it transparently - really cymbals and and the snare drum are so badly reproduced with PCM.

 

I cannot say why, I have my own theory's, but they are just that.... But for sure the difference is all very depressing that we are told how superior Digital is, while at the same time how bad analogue tape is but when listening to a ADC/DAC* loopback of a master tape recording digital fails so spectacularly - it just does not sound real to me!

 

*The ADC / DAC was an Antelope Orion³² Multi-Channel AD/DA Converter with a Rubidium Master clock.

 

 

[Leonardo Piras]

He has proven over and over again that he has very good ears - at his studio recently we listen to Master tape played back directly and PCM192 ADC / DAC loop-back... its was not even funny how poor PCM 192 sounded compared to the Master tape...

 

Ok, so let's everyone buy reel-to-reel and start hunting ebay for good tapes

With all due respect, it's been known for ages that analogue tape has its own sound.. and when you're accustomed to it, it is clear that it sounds different. It measures different, and it sounds different.

 

Now, does digital sounds "poor"? I have enough studio experience to say that it doesn't, when properly converted and mastered. Does it sound different? You bet. It's a matter of individual taste.

 

PCM "upsampled" to DSD measures different and sounds different. Is it better? It's a matter of individual taste.

I'm starting to read that even lossy mp3s upsampled to dsd sounds fantastic... It may be too much )

[sandyk]

I come here to read intelligent opinions expressed in an intelligent way by intelligent people. If I want to hear "normal" people talk, I'll watch reality TV.

 

I guess that rules out discussions with your family then ? (grin)

[kumakuma]

I guess that rules out discussions with your family then ? (grin)

 

Latine si usus domi

[christopher3393]

To those of you who are new here: Welcome to the Tower of Babel. Note that a collapse is immanent.

[elcorso]

Latine si usus domi

 

Latin usage at home= Latine si usus domi

 

Google translate is against Babel Tower!...

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

Latin usage at home= Latine si usus domi

 

Google translate is against Babel Tower!...

 

Roch

 

But can Google Translate help the two sides of our great divide communicate?

[elcorso]

But can Google Translate help the two sides of our great divide communicate?

 

For this you would need Google Miracles!....

 

Roch

[mayhem13]

To those of you who are new here: Welcome to the Tower of Babel. Note that a collapse is immanent.

 

........but I'd doesn't have to be. Archimago's test given the sample size is kinda hard to refute. And even for those that can hear a difference, the immediate and convincing manner in which they do is clearly suspect given the results.

 

Everyone here deserves to be heard as long as there's at least two criteria....civility AND rationality. Are Archimago's test results either?........I would say certainly.

 

.....but is the very first reply to this thread? Obviously not. The poster's own personal beliefs are so challenged by these findings that he lashes out.....in a VERY uncivilized and irrational way.

 

Now as many know, he will continue to defend his position until either air escapes his lungs and he is no longer animate or this thread spirals into a cesspool of audio combatants.

 

I would suggest we not afford him either luxury, but instead examine the topic for what it is. If you don't agree with the findings......ok.....there's room for doubt there as with even the most convenient of truths we believe today. But there's rationality to be applied here as well. When someone claims emphatically to be able to identify easily what 150 of the same species could not............?