Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

Well, sort of. It needs to be converted to DXD in order to edit it. It's a kind of PCM designed to interchange freely with DSD.

 

Digital eXtreme Definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have to convert to PCM in order to edit DSD, why not record to PCM in the first place?

 

There is also DSD-Wide as an editing format, but again that requires conversion to multi-bit DSD, and back to 1-bit DSD. Any time you convert to 1-bit is a lossy process.

Link to comment
Much as I like the sound of DSD, it is my understanding that DSD cannot be edited directly and requires conversion to PCM for editing and then conversion back to DSD within the DAW. This would seem to defeat most of the benefits of recording in DSD for the vast majority of albums.

 

Well, sort of. It needs to be converted to DXD in order to edit it. It's a kind of PCM designed to interchange freely with DSD.

 

Digital eXtreme Definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes, DXD (24 bit 352.8kHz PCM) is one option, it perhaps has the most flexibility as you can use high resolution PCM tools. Simple editing can also be done in DSD wide (8 bit 5.6MHz). Also quite complex editing can be done in the analog domain using analog tools. And of course some Audiophile companies, such as DMP are "Direct to DSD" with no editing within a movement or song, much like Direct Discs of yesteryear.

 

Also if the original master is analog, as most of the music I like is, I prefer all mastering to be done in analog. Blue Coast Records and Opus 3 still record in analog and are some of the best sounding in DSD music files in my collection.

 

My preference is:

  • Direct to DSD (no editing)
  • Pure DSD
  • Analog to analog editing to DSD
  • DSD to DSD wide editing to DSD
  • DSD to analog editing to DSD

I actually prefer to listen to DXD recordings in their natural state as 24 bit 352.8kHz PCM music files. However some prefer them converted to DSD, check out 2L's test bench to see what you prefer.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment

Hi Barry -

 

Have you tried any experimental recordings in DSD or DSX format? Just curious, not hinting. :)

 

 

-Paul

 

 

After I responded to another member's question about *my* take on DSD, what would lead anyone to believe I've only heard DSD on my own equipment, as opposed to say, a good variety of systems?

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
If you have to convert to PCM in order to edit DSD, why not record to PCM in the first place?

 

There is also DSD-Wide as an editing format, but again that requires conversion to multi-bit DSD, and back to 1-bit DSD. Any time you convert to 1-bit is a lossy process.

 

That's probably not a bad idea for recordings that require a lot of editing, and some record companies do just that. Prof. Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings, for instance, records in very high sampling rate PCM, and Then the recordings are converted to DSD for release (most DSD Reference Recordings releases are multiple format, with DSD and regular CD layers). San Francisco Symphony Records, OTOH, record directly to DSD. I don't know if they do any editing at all. If you want to hear great DSD sound, purchase one of the SFS' recent Beethoven Symphony Cycle recordings!

George

Link to comment
Hi Barry -

 

Have you tried any experimental recordings in DSD or DSX format? Just curious, not hinting. :)

 

 

-Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

No I haven't. After what I've heard, (even though several folks I know like it) I have no interest in the format.

Besides, I'm thrilled with the results I'm getting with my ULN-8 at 24/192.

 

(Just did a new recording last week - with new power cables--something I've never tried before--and new mic cables. I'm really liking what came back and have never heard recorded acoustic guitars that are as convincing.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
I went to SFS web site and could not find Beethoven Symphonies, only Mahler Symphonies. Can you post a link ?

 

TIA

Not sure if they are available as downloads anywhere as DSD; but LSO (London Symphony Orchestra) Live recordings have (mostly) been in DSD since the start of LSO Live label in 1999.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
That's probably not a bad idea for recordings that require a lot of editing, and some record companies do just that. Prof. Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings, for instance, records in very high sampling rate PCM, and Then the recordings are converted to DSD for release (most DSD Reference Recordings releases are multiple format, with DSD and regular CD layers). San Francisco Symphony Records, OTOH, record directly to DSD. I don't know if they do any editing at all. If you want to hear great DSD sound, purchase one of the SFS' recent Beethoven Symphony Cycle recordings!

 

 

That's the reverse of how you should buy classical. You pick by performance, and for the Beethoven Symphony Cycle, Tilson Thomas ain't it, try Kleiber or von Karajan or the surprisingly good Dudamel

Link to comment
That's the reverse of how you should buy classical. You pick by performance, and for the Beethoven Symphony Cycle, Tilson Thomas ain't it, try Kleiber or von Karajan or the surprisingly good Dudamel

 

Or you could buy based on a combination of performance and recording. Or are you assuming the buyer doesn't already own any of them?

 

Maybe they do and just want to have something in their collection with especially good SQ.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

Hello,

Don't want to rise another discussion about what's better and why, but reading this I more and more somehow on side that mastering it the most important thing, rather the resolution if your DAC filters can act appropriately. Lots of people, including me went for high resolution, because different mastering in that case brought to us much better sound quality then regular CD nowdays produced for mass market without much attention to sonics. Just my thoughts however.

 

Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

--

Krzysztof Maj

http://mkrzych.wordpress.com/

"Music is the highest form of art. It is also the most noble. It is human emotion, captured, crystallised, encased… and then passed on to others." - By Ken Ishiwata

Link to comment
That's the reverse of how you should buy classical. You pick by performance, and for the Beethoven Symphony Cycle, Tilson Thomas ain't it, try Kleiber or von Karajan or the surprisingly good Dudamel

 

 

That's obviously a matter of opinion, and not gospel, because I disagree heartily about Tilson Thomas. There are two extremes in Beethoven, on the one end, there's the Toscannini school (Osmo Vaska. Minnesota Orchestra a great one in this style, BTW) of very fast tempi (Toscannini was obviously trying to get as much music on a 78 side as possible, so it is at least understandable) Then there is the glacial Haitink style (Good ensemble playing and definition of the orchestral parts, but kind of boring). Everybody else is somewhere in between. Von Karajan falls toward the Toscannini side in the tempo department, but nowhere near as frenetic. His cycle from the late 1950's and early 1960's is actually my all-time favorite. Partially because of his interpretation with the great Berlin Philharmonic at it's peak, and partially because the recordings are real stereo, which I value very highly. DGG in those days was recording using MS microphone technique, and the imaging and soundstage is simply breathtaking. Karajan's later cycle recordings in the late 1960's and early 1970's is not as good, sound wise (although the playing and interpretation is about the same) because by that time DGG had succumbed to the industry pressure to go multi-miked and multi-channel and sounds about as much like a real symphony orchestra as does a kazoo! The recordings have no imaging (just a line of musicians strung across the stage), no depth, no real hall sound. Yecch!

 

Thomas, OTOH, is solidly in the middle, tempo-wise with emphasis on expressiveness and getting the best virtuosi performances from his instrument (The San Francisco Orchestra). However, I did not recommend one of these recordings for the interpretation of these works, I recommended them for the incredible DSD sound that SFS Media's engineering crew was able to elicit from the orchestra and Davies Symphony hall. And that's how I presented it in post #129!

George

Link to comment
There is room for both objective and subjective approaches, and neither should be seen as an "attack" on the other.

 

John, isn't that statement a little too logical and balanced for this thread?

 

<smile>

 

Dave, who also believes that both nature and nurture affect our perceptions

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Music is love, made audible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment
If you have to convert to PCM in order to edit DSD, why not record to PCM in the first place?

 

There is also DSD-Wide as an editing format, but again that requires conversion to multi-bit DSD, and back to 1-bit DSD. Any time you convert to 1-bit is a lossy process.

 

(Bold is mine)

 

Not at all. Last night I converted by Audiogate to DSD128 the following 24/96 album:

 

Joseph_Adam-Seattle_Symphony_Orchestra-Ludovic_Mor.jpg

 

The resulting SQ is outstanding (to my ears & gear).

 

There are many ways to edit DSD recordings. Anyway, too much editing in any format ends with not the best SQ.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Roch

Link to comment

Roch

The fact remains that the original 24/96 LPCM recording must have been very good in the first place.

You can't make a Silk Purse out of a Sow's ear !

This is more about overcoming the limitations of present LPCM decoding and filtering.

Some smart people are already working on that aspect, including Charles Hansen and Bob Stewart..

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Roch

The fact remains that the original 24/96 LPCM recording must have been very good in the first place.

You can't make a Silk Purse out of a Sow's ear !

This is more about overcoming the limitations of present LPCM decoding and filtering.

Some smart people are already working on that aspect, including Charles Hansen and Bob Stewart..

 

Regards

Alex

 

Alex,

 

Of course the recording is very good, if not, why to lost my time?

 

My point in this reply is, converting to DSD is not a 'lossy process', because you are up sampling and not downsampling, like some body could think!...

 

Regards,

 

Roch

Link to comment
Alex,

 

Of course the recording is very good, if not, why to lost my time?

 

My point in this reply is, converting to DSD is not a 'lossy process', because you are up sampling and not downsampling, like some body could think!...

 

Regards,

 

Roch

 

Skeptic has been preaching that all over the system, and some folks agree with him. I

 

do not happen to be one of those folks, as to me "lossy" conversions require that information is lost in the conversion, and that simply is not so in the case of converting PCM to DSD.

 

Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Skeptic has been preaching that all over the system, and some folks agree with him. I

 

do not happen to be one of those folks, as to me "lossy" conversions require that information is lost in the conversion, and that simply is not so in the case of converting PCM to DSD.

 

Paul

 

It's not really a matter of opinion: the definition of "lossy conversion" is one where the conversion is not exact (i.e., is not reversible). It has nothing to do with whether the resulting file is smaller or larger than the original, or whether data is added / subtracted from the original.

 

Thus, upsampling (that is not simply padding word lengths) is just as lossy as downsampling. Likewise, conversion from PCM > DSD (or vice versa) is lossy.

 

Conversely, conversion from FLAC > ALAC, WAV > FLAC, AIFF > ALAC, etc., are all lossless conversions, regardless of which file is larger or smaller at the end.

 

It's really not up for debate.

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth

Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system

Link to comment

I agree with jhwalker. A lossless process allows perfect reconstruction of the original data. It's a pity that there aren't well defined gradations of lossy. I personally like the term "perceptually lossless", at the risk that it works until disproven. So if no one can hear a difference after upsampling, it would qualify.

Link to comment
It's not really a matter of opinion: the definition of "lossy conversion" is one where the conversion is not exact (i.e., is not reversible). It has nothing to do with whether the resulting file is smaller or larger than the original, or whether data is added / subtracted from the original.

 

Thus, upsampling (that is not simply padding word lengths) is just as lossy as downsampling. Likewise, conversion from PCM > DSD (or vice versa) is lossy.

 

Conversely, conversion from FLAC > ALAC, WAV > FLAC, AIFF > ALAC, etc., are all lossless conversions, regardless of which file is larger or smaller at the end.

 

It's really not up for debate.

 

We disagree. That definition is not accurate in all situations, though it is accurate in all situations where it does apply.

 

Consider the specific instance we are talking about here, it is certainly at least misleading to most people.

 

As for the CS definition, mathematical transforms must be reversible to be considered lossless- most commonly found when discussing data compression. This is not the case here and the term "lossy" is being bantered around in an extremely inaccurate manner, designed to instill FUD.

 

The transform from PCM to DSD is perfectly reversible if one uses a log or secondary data store to provide the information necessary to do the reverse transform. This is absolutely no different than using logs and journaling in database systems to provide consistently reversible transactions or other data transforms. And when I say perfectly reversible, I mean I wrote the transforms this evening, and while the code is crappy, it works.

 

All of which appears to me as just another case of someone stirring up FUD for some reason that is utterly unfathomable to me. Admittedly, I may be a little sensitive on this subject. And no I did not write the test code in HLASM. :)

 

Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Thanks Guys (Roch, Paul and others)

 

I reactivated my Twitter account so I could try up-converting to DSD with my original Audiogate 2.3.1. I also downloaded Audiogate 3 and but without a Korg product I only got Audiogate lite which doesn't convert.

 

I tried a 24/88.2 music file by Barb Jungr in both 2.8MHz and 5.6MHz, the 2.8MHz sounded very real, smooth and the piano keys sounded like the real thing. Then I tried 5.6MHz and hot damn, there is no trace of digital sound at all, it sounded like real music. Looks like I'm going to be busy converting all my PCM to 5.6MHz DSD.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
dsd conversion is the messiest thing I ve tried ; you should investigate other ways such as EQing....

 

What is the basis for saying this?

 

I have never found conversion messy with the right tools and I started doing this when dCS made it possible over a decade ago. Same with DP on a computer now.

fmak

Link to comment
I tried a 24/88.2 music file by Barb Jungr in both 2.8MHz and 5.6MHz, the 2.8MHz sounded very real, smooth and the piano keys sounded like the real thing. Then I tried 5.6MHz and hot damn, there is no trace of digital sound at all, it sounded like real music. Looks like I'm going to be busy converting all my PCM to 5.6MHz DSD.
I would recommend using a player which converts on playback rather than offline conversion.

When you want to store a copy of the originals (because there may be something you prefer to 5.6MHz DSD at some point in the future) and a duplicate as 2xDSD, the disk space requirements grow considerably.

 

Not at all. Last night I converted by Audiogate to DSD128 the following 24/96 album:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/13467d1404435554-can-you-hear-difference-between-16bit-and-24bit-audio-files-joseph_adam-seattle_symphony_orchestra-ludovic_mor.jpg

 

The resulting SQ is outstanding (to my ears & gear).Roch

It may be counterintuitive, but a lossy process can still result in something that you prefer the sound of.

 

It may simply be that your DAC does a much better job playing DSD than PCM, so converting to DSD - while being a lossy process - still sounds better in your system.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...