[Brian loves music]

Searched the forums and couldn't find a thread addressing this question. With my soon ariving emu 0404 usb - HD595 combo, I'm considering buying a few of my favorite albums (sigur ros's ( ) and radiohead's Kid A) off music giants in 24bit HD format.

Just wondering how big the difference is? Would it take better gear to notice it (say hd650s or something)? Has anyone compared the two? (not looking for technical specs like the increased range of 24 bit flacs but rather whether 24bit adds a considerable amount of enjoyment to everday listening)

Anyone have experience switching over to 24 bit? How does this compare to the difference between say 320kbps (or less) and flac.

Thank you!

 

[krmathis]

There are an audible difference between 24-bit/96kHz and 16-bit/44.1kHz to my ears. But it might not be audible for every person on all kind of gear.

I suggest you give it a try yourself.
You find some free 24-bit/96kHz samples at High Definition Tape Transfers.

 

[mwofsi]

Someone posted a comparison where the same track could be downloaded recorded in both 16/44 and 24/96 bit, (sorry I don't have the link).

I can clearly hear the difference, finding the 24 far superior in detail and musicality, and that's with my Beyer231 which aren't particularly revealing.

 

[HFat]

... and that's a bogus test. You need to convert the sample yourself (and volume-match if necessary). Of course, it also needs to be a blind test.

But yeah, do check the old threads.
24-bit is mainly useful for recording... and possibly to playback extremely dynamic music real loud.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... and that's a bogus test. You need to convert the sample yourself (and volume-match if necessary). Of course, it also needs to be a blind test.

X2

The differences (very very slight) I noticed (in a blind test, I scored 13/15) between a 24/96 sample and a 16/44.1 sample downloaded from the same site vanished when I downsampled the 24/96 myself (score exactly 50%). I just did it again - same 50% score - this time through a better USB external soundcard outputting an optical digital to an external DAC.

Ooops - my Entech DAC is only rated at 48K so I had set the sound card to 44.1 yesterday , I redid the test this time using the sound card at 24/96 but this time using the analog outs to my M^3 and Sennheiser HD580s - still the same result.

Annoyingly I cant do a blind test of 24/96 vs 24/44 of the sound card itself as you have to physically set dip switches to change mode then re-initialise the card.

Fwiw when I analysed the original 24/96 and 16/44.1 files in an audio package there were obvious (though admittedly small) visible differences in the waveforms these were far less apparent after downsampling.

YMMV of course.

 

[pompon]

Try

Linn Records - specialists in Classical, Jazz and Celtic music

You can try 24/44 and 88/192 on samples.

 

[Tarkovsky]

24 bit is very noticeable as it's a higher dynamic range. With a bit of volume you'd have to be deaf not to notice that. This means more space for bass beneath 40hz, which is difficult to achieve on CD because lower frequencies need larger amplitude for the same level of power (not to mention to achieve the same perceived level). The sampling is a bit different - I hear it, but I'm 19 and can hear beyond 20khz. Seeing as most music is recorded @ 192khz I think it's pretty sensible as you're then not loosing any detail and suffering any conversions.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pompon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try Linn Records - specialists in Classical, Jazz and Celtic music You can try 24/44 and 88/192 on samples.

I downloaded a 24/88 and a 16/44.1 test sample from Linn of the same track - they were audibly indistinguishable to me in a blind test - but in my audio software the files were slightly different - the high res file was slightly shorter - might not make a difference. Once you adjust for this the waveforms were pretty damn identical - of course the high res recording has energy above 22K, not relevant for my 49 year old ears.

Very nice recordings however.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian loves music /img/forum/go_quote.gif Searched the forums and couldn't find a thread addressing this question. With my soon ariving emu 0404 usb - HD595 combo, I'm considering buying a few of my favorite albums (sigur ros's ( ) and radiohead's Kid A) off music giants in 24bit HD format.

If you like modern rock then I'd say 24bit recordings aren't worth it. The few rock SACDs I've bought have not been that much different from CDs. Beck's Sea Change is nice on SACD, but all his other albums are CD (and through my DAC sound about as good).

The areas that I find SACD sounds great at are DSD recorded material (modern classical) and older recordings where they didn't compress the bagebers out off the masters. So far, that tends to be classical and jazz as well.....haven't really found a rock SACD album that impresses me over CD. If a SACD is coming from a good master, I find it has a better soundstage and nicer detail over CD....not that CD is bad or anything. I have a lot of CDs that blow me away because of the performance and engineering that went into it.

And my opinion about upsampling 16bit recordings to 24bit is that it doesn't inately do anything. The D/A might make things sound more pleasant or vibrant, and that's an effect of the processor itself: not with it being 16 or 24 bit.

 

[facelvega]

x2 on what the others have said so far. I'd worry more about SNR and dynamic range ratings than bits, and more about how one thing sounds against another than any of the measurements.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarkovsky /img/forum/go_quote.gif 24 bit is very noticeable as it's a higher dynamic range.

Except that I doubt that you will find a recording that has even a 93db dynamic range let alone the 120 - 140db that high res formats can have.

You should try blind tests - FooBar 2000 lets you do these quite easily, you may be surprised at how hard it is to tell 24 bits from 16 bits.

Quote:

With a bit of volume you'd have to be deaf not to notice that.

Meyer and Moran (2007) in a peer reviewed journal paper published by the AES concluded that nobody (in over 500 trials) could reliably discern a difference between high res and 16/44.1 - except that you could detect the higher noise floor when some music was played really loud.


See also :

Which Bandwidth is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?
Plenge, G. H .; Jakubowski, H.; Schöne, P.

Sampling-Frequency Considerations in Digital Audio
TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI
(I have copy of this)

 

[mwofsi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... and that's a bogus test. You need to convert the sample yourself (and volume-match if necessary).

You have a point in that I wasn't switching between playback conversion modes, but these particular samples were indicated as being a rare instance of the possibility of direct comparison, in that it's uncommon for both versions to be carefully matched and recorded at the same time in both modes unless it had been done for comparative purposes as these had. There is an obvious difference, but perhaps I approached it incorrectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course, it also needs to be a blind test.

Only if I'm trying to sell you something. I just felt my experience was relevant to the op.

 

[Brian loves music]

are sacd-dts files, which i've been hearing about, in 24/196? how do you play them anyone know?

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwofsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif a rare instance of the possibility of direct comparison, in that it's uncommon for both versions to be carefully matched and recorded at the same time in both modes

What does it matter that they've been recorded in both modes? All you need is a "high-res" sample: you can convert it.
That would explain why the samples are different: they've been recorded with different gear (maybe even different mikes).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwofsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only if I'm trying to sell you something. I just felt my experience was relevant to the op.

What does blind testing have to do with selling something?
Blind tests aren't for convincing people (you could lie about the tests), they're for you: you know what your experience was like but you don't know what it is you're experienced until you've gone through the routine. The tests tell you very little, but the little they tell you is rather critical and quite useful in practice. You may also be able to apply what you've learned about your perception during the blind tests to sighted comparisons. Hell, I even apply it to other people's descriptions of what they hear.

 

[Happy Camper]

24 bit is beneficial to the recording engineer because it gives more dynamic headroom. Once mastered to 16 bit, increasing the bit length is more for DAC needs in processing information and reducing jitter. http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets...perwebedit.pdf

As I understand it. Of course I have also mis-understood lots so I hope others would drop in for a more knowledgable answer.