Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo - Page 13

post #181 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdogzthmn View Post
A great example is "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis.  I have an Apple Lossless version and one that's 88.2K.

 

I guess the former is not a downsampled version of the latter, but a different master ?

post #182 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdogzthmn View Post

 

I've been doing just that and noticing discernible differences between a few of my 16/44 and 24/96 songs with my SR-507.  Any of my other headphones I would say it's much harder to hear a noticeable change but with the Stax it can be easy to figure our which track is which.

 

A great example is "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis.  I have an Apple Lossless version and one that's 88.2K.  The difference between the two is immediate and easy to hear.  I know it's probably not the case for every hi-rez vs. redbook file but there are plenty of tracks where the different is substantial.  

Stax might just be resolving enough t get the job done. Did you get a second person to blindfold you and switch the tracks? Or did you use an app or?

post #183 of 210
I put the tracks in a playlist on shuffle. Ill try it again with my roommates later to see what they come up with.
post #184 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdogzthmn View Post

I put the tracks in a playlist on shuffle. Ill try it again with my roommates later to see what they come up with.

Thanks, I'd love to see some truth behind a lot of audiophile myths.

post #185 of 210

Again, if the CD quality version was not created by converting the "high resolution" file, then it is not surprising that there is an audible difference, as they are likely to be different masters.

post #186 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

Again, if the CD quality version was not created by converting the "high resolution" file, then it is not surprising that there is an audible difference, as they are likely to be different masters.

That's a good point. For a true blind test, one should convert the high resolution file to flac, or even 320kbps then do the test.

post #187 of 210

I was thinking about downloading some albums on HD Tracks that I already have the CD on Apple Lossless.  I've seen some very interesting points and numbers through the threads, but I want to know if I'll hear a difference if I buy some HD Tracks albums.  I did download the Sampler, and it sounded a lot better on my headphone system.

post #188 of 210
Quote:

Originally Posted by Proxy1 View Post


<snip>

 

Therefore, claiming that 24 bit audio sounds significantly better than 16 bit audio is dishonest at best.

 

<snip>

 

 

+1

post #189 of 210

In terms of pure delivery formats, I agree that 24 bit doesn't provide much tangible advantage for consumers. However, for an app like ours, having 24 bit files would be a good deal better for our DSP processing — less concern with dynamic range, dither noise, etc.

 

If anything is going to be done to the audio stream — even if just a simple EQ — 24 bit helps.

post #190 of 210

Sure, but you're probably doing DSP with at least 32 bit floating point anyway I guess, and you can quantize the result to 24 bits with or without dither (not going to matter).

 

There's usually noise on the tracks above the perceived dithered 16-bit noise floor too, so yeah 24 is not gonna make a difference there. Also, any EQ boost will boost noise and (the usually much stronger) signal equivalently. Can't hear the noise before EQing there's a good chance you won't afterwards.

post #191 of 210

This reminds me of why I shoot and process photos in 48-bit colour, when it will be viewed, likely, on a screen that can only reproduce 24-bit colour.  (Okay, nitpickers, my DSLR sensor can only output 36 bits, and the other 12 bits are just padding, but you get the picture. I made a pun! yay!) Also, the typical human eye can't see much finer than 24-bit colour, so why do I go to the trouble? It gives you more freedom to manipulate the file. 

 

Annnyyywayy... 

1: Gizmodo really should get out of hi-fi writing (as should CNN- they just had a series of wretched op-eds about hifi stuff). This just isn't their area of expertise.

2: They do have a point- 24-bit files are most of the time going to be a gimmick for the studios to make more money, as 95% of the systems the files will be played on won't be able to reproduce the difference. 

3: Their article is written to the more average person, and we are looking at this from a different perspective. There's no need to get too angry, as we aren't their target audience. 

3.5: So, basically, what I mean is that the article wasn't written with the serious audiophile in mind.

 

Analogy:

 

Doctors cringe when visiting WebMD. 

post #192 of 210

Quick question...Going out from my MacBook Pro Retina (2012) to my Garage1217 Starlight Amp...Will that allow 24-bit sound?


Edited by KBGolfRunner - 10/5/13 at 7:19am
post #193 of 210

I am insulted by this!  Outrageous...I AM NOT A CON!  :P

post #194 of 210

An amp with analog inputs doesn't care about bits, all it cares for is the analog signal.

 

16/24 bits refer to the size of samples in digital audio.


Edited by xnor - 10/5/13 at 10:25am
post #195 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBGolfRunner View Post
 

Quick question...Going out from my MacBook Pro Retina (2012) to my Garage1217 Starlight Amp...Will that allow 24-bit sound?

 

Check your Sound and MIDI Settings.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo