24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[1c3d0g]

  Did you manage to get micro sounding better than the Realtek onboard chip ?
 
I had quite "a-not-so-pleasent-ball-with-my-PC" before my nano started to sound as it should. PC related, registry leaning etc etc. And it takes a few days to configure whatever software you are using to your liking/preference - ALWAYS taking in account of the limitations of your hardware.
 
It is only fair to any DAC to clearly state with which hardware and software ( and how configurd ...) it is being used - it can do nothing on its own.

I'm still waiting for my Fostex TH900 to arrive - it should be coming next week. I'll reserve final judgment when I can rule out the Sony MDR-XB1000 headphone as a possible inferior variable. Sometimes, some headphones and amps just don't have the right synergy.
 
Oh, and as for the PC, it's freshly formatted notebook with the latest drivers & updates on everything. It's a real audible difference, not just a slight difference. Explosions sound better, you can hear footsteps right behind you etc. With the iDSD, it's much less pronounced and almost kind of lifeless. You'll be hearing from me when I've done proper testing.

 

[jugate]

   
How exactly do you have things set up? The HD surround formats have the ability to send out a non-HD "core" when connected with something like optical cable that can't handle the full bandwidth, but this all depends on the exact settings of your source and sound card.

 
SOUNDBLASTER Z. Decoder software by windDVD PRO. Conected to z906 logitech by analog 3.5mm cables.

 

[jugate]

dolby true hd = 5.1 flac? is a lossless codec?
 
Quote:

  Blu-ray disks have multiple audio tracks in various formats. Generally, you set your player to default to the highest quality track your player is able to decode and don't worry about it any more. The only really significant difference in sound quality is 2 channel vs 5.1/7.1.

 
ok but can 24 bits sound WORSE that 16 bits? because dolby/dts HD are recorded in 48khz/24 bits.

 

[U2Bono269]

So, I wanted to check back in with my observations. I got my iBasso DX50 yesterday and I spent quite a bit of time with it in the past 24+ hours.
 
My goal was to listen to U2's Achtung Baby Deluxe Edition in 2 different formats. I did my research, and it would seem the HDTracks (24-44.1) version and CD version come from the same master. The Edge stated that the album, when rereleased for this edition, was not remastered, but rather tweaked. There were no further comments from him. Based on what I've read here, it would stand to reason that the album was dithered to redbook from the 24bit master, right?
 
They sounded the same, except for one tiny detail. It sounded to me that reverb in certain tracks sounded clearer and airier on the HDTracks version. I was not expecting that. I think I noticed only because I've listened to this album hundreds of times since I first bought it way back in 1997.
 
Perhaps this means the 2 are indeed a separate master, or the redbook version may have been adjusted slightly. Or I'm imagining it.
 
From a layman's view, I suspect that there may be benefits to the high resolution audio movement aside from the science of it. I don't know what they would be; I've just been idly thinking while shoveling snow.

 

[lamode]

   
ok but can 24 bits sound WORSE that 16 bits? because dolby/dts HD are recorded in 48khz/24 bits.

 
Dolby is really irrelevant to this argument.
 
And no, why would 24 bits sound worse than 16 bit, if we have already established that you can't hear a different between 16 and 24 bit.

 

[bigshot]

  My goal was to listen to U2's Achtung Baby Deluxe Edition in 2 different formats. I did my research, and it would seem the HDTracks (24-44.1) version and CD version come from the same master. The Edge stated that the album, when rereleased for this edition, was not remastered, but rather tweaked. There were no further comments from him. Based on what I've read here, it would stand to reason that the album was dithered to redbook from the 24bit master, right?

 
Not necessarily. There's remastering, which often involves remixing and just normal mastering, where just the volume and compression levels are adjusted. The recording artist isn't generally consulted for the latter. The only way to know that two versions are identical is to make the redbook version yourself by bumping down the 24 bit copy.

 

[U2Bono269]

Then, it was not remastered, just mastered. In U2's case, The Edge was involved in the mastering/remastering of the Deluxe Editions they've put out since 2007. Albums like Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree were definitely remastered. Achtung Baby was not. But that's beside the point...both the CD and HDtracks version are from the same project. While I can't be 100% certain of that without having been there with them, evidence and logic suggest it to be the case.
 
But like I have said, I am not interested in simply downsampling and comparing. As a listener, I feel like that's only part of the story. I can't say this enough...I want to know the differences between similar commercial releases between formats.
 
Yes, if I take the HDTracks version and downsample it, they are identical. But in practice, it seems that if I buy the 2012 deluxe release of Achtung Baby on CD, and I buy the 2012 deluxe release of Achtung Baby from HDTracks, there is an admittedly minute difference. So somewhere in the process of converting that 24bit recording into a 16bit redbook, something changed.
 
The consensus in this thread seems to be that high resolution tracks aren't worth it because on a purely scientific basis, there's no difference. Again, I agree with that. But theory and practice are often two different things. If labels are putting out high resolution albums that have even minute differences, it kind of negates that conclusion, doesn't it? If I want to hear that airier reverb while listening to Zoo Station, the only way for me to get it is to buy the HDTracks version.

 

[RRod]

 
The consensus in this thread seems to be that high resolution tracks aren't worth it because on a purely scientific basis, there's no difference. Again, I agree with that. But theory and practice are often two different things. If labels are putting out high resolution albums that have even minute differences, it kind of negates that conclusion, doesn't it? If I want to hear that airier reverb while listening to Zoo Station, the only way for me to get it is to buy the HDTracks version.

 
I know my personal feeling is that they shouldn't be charging $15-$30 just for a bit more reverb or to make us pay for a good mastering that they should have put on CD in the first place.

 

[bigshot]

In the case of Led Zeppelin and Frank Sinatra, the vinyl records from the original release dates often trump any digital release, even though LPs are much lower fidelity than either CDs or 24bit. In the case of the Beatles, the first CD release was a straight transfer off the original master tapes, while the recent remasters for the stereo box are slightly compressed. So in that case, the old CD is better than the remastered CD. Donald Fagen's The Nightfly, one of the best sounding records ever made, sounds best on Japanese SACD, even though the record was recorded in the early days of digital at 16/44.1.
 
The format is completely unrelated to sound quality.
 
If you want to know which of the releases of the U2 records sound the best, the place you are going to find that out is in the Music forum, not Sound Science. Rekkid collectors can tell you which release sounds the best. All we can tell you here is whether a particular format has the *potential* for sounding better or not. And you've already gotten that answer- just about any format you buy an album in, from the iTunes store download to massive DSD files all have the same potential for sounding perfect.

 

[U2Bono269]

I'm not looking to find out which U2 releases sound best. I pretty much own them all, so I can figure it out myself (and have!). I just used it as an example. I'm trying to understand the correlation between the science of 24bit vs 16bit and the real life use of it. I appreciate everyone joining in the discussion with me. But while I understand more of the science now, I don't feel like I've come to a satisfying conclusion. But that's ok, it's just all the more reason to read and learn new things. I'm probably not asking the right questions to find what I'm looking for, because I most likely don't know what the right questions are. But I'm trying.

 

[heart banger-97]

Blind test them for yourself. Theory has shown us, experiment would test it.

 

[James-uk]

I'm not looking to find out which U2 releases sound best. I pretty much own them all, so I can figure it out myself (and have!). I just used it as an example. I'm trying to understand the correlation between the science of 24bit vs 16bit and the real life use of it. I appreciate everyone joining in the discussion with me. But while I understand more of the science now, I don't feel like I've come to a satisfying conclusion. But that's ok, it's just all the more reason to read and learn new things. I'm probably not asking the right questions to find what I'm looking for, because I most likely don't know what the right questions are. But I'm trying.

The conclusion is the format doesn't matter. end of conversation. The best master is subjective. You might prefer the 1985 original vinyl release and I might prefer the 2015 digital 24/196 remastered SACD blu Ray TM high res /super HD 4k super duper 3D real TM hi res version. Either way CD could perfectly emulate both.

 

[Greenears]

  .....
 
Perhaps this means the 2 are indeed a separate master, or the redbook version may have been adjusted slightly. Or I'm imagining it.
 
From a layman's view, I suspect that there may be benefits to the high resolution audio movement aside from the science of it. I don't know what they would be; I've just been idly thinking while shoveling snow.

 
So what people are trying to tell you, in a roundabout way, is that most posters on this long and winding thread seem to agree on only one thing: Masters matter, masters are audibly different, and are independent of format.  It's not really a Sound Science question to know what some producer or engineer did X number of years ago but there are many forums that I think do a good job with that.
 
However, if you want to apply science to figure out if you are imagining the difference, you simply make 3 files: A - the CD version, B - the 24 bit version, C - the 24b version truncated down to 16.  Scroll back for all the tools needed to do this - they are free and easy to install, and many have done this including me.  You ABX test A vs B, and A vs C.  If you can't use that improved air you heard to pick out the difference in at least one pair, then you were imagining it.  It's quite common to imagine things.
 
That's all there is to it.

 

[jugate]

   
Dolby is really irrelevant to this argument.
 
And no, why would 24 bits sound worse than 16 bit, if we have already established that you can't hear a different between 16 and 24 bit.

 
not because if dolby/dts use 24 bits, is for something
 
simple question: can you differentiate mp3 vbr/320 from a flac?

 

[bigshot]

  I'm not looking to find out which U2 releases sound best. I pretty much own them all, so I can figure it out myself (and have!). I just used it as an example. I'm trying to understand the correlation between the science of 24bit vs 16bit and the real life use of it.

 
Oh! Sorry! Then the answer is simple. It doesn't make any difference at all. No human can hear the difference between 16 and 24. Read the first post in this thread and you're done.