[Avi]

Maybe someone can collate those links and basic answers to form the nucleus for a sticky post on the topic?

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

You guys might want to check this out and the ongoing convo. More interestingly the article on Morning Phase in HDtracks..

 

[gebo]

   
>
 
We know and accept there are mastering differences, but generally I think if 16 and 24 are offered side to side on the same site, I think it's the same mastering.  At least I've never heard anyone claim contrary.

 
Is this the unanimous opinion of the experts on this forum?
Has anybody done comparative measurements or the like?

 

[StanD]

   
Is this the unanimous opinion of the experts on this forum?
Has anybody done comparative measurements or the like?

Let's be practical, who has the time and money to compare the complete offerings on all of these sites? Which site has enough resources to remaster everything on their site?

 

[Greenears]

   
Is this the unanimous opinion of the experts on this forum?
Has anybody done comparative measurements or the like?

"Unanimous" and "forum" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
 
I was told by others (reasonably convincingly, with measurements) that AC/DC new Rock or Bust the 24 bit version is identical to the Europe/Australia CD release mastering, the 16 bit is the US CD which is measurably and audibly different.
 
I have seen other claims (with less detail) that some 24 bit was simply upsampled 16 bit. 
 
You can try it yourself with foobar dynamic range plugin. 

 

[U2Bono269]

I hesitate to bring this up again, but I found an article that's a little confusing and I think this is still the best place to ask it.
 
I found an article about Hesitation Marks, Nine Inch Nails last album. Here's the link:
 
http://nineinchnails.tumblr.com/post/59587808317/hesitation-marks-was-mastered-in-two-different
 
Basically, if you bought the CD, you could download an audiophile version (24bits, 48khz) for free.
 
I interpret this article to say that it was impossible to have a modern "loud" album, and have good dynamic range at the same time. It seems they wanted an album that was both loud and had great dynamic range and couldn't do it on a CD. Is redbook not sufficient for this? If you want a loud album with high DR, this article indicates that you'd need more than a CD can address. Is that a correct assessment on my part? If so, is that due to the increased bits, or the increased range?
 
Regardless of what you think of the loudness wars, I really do like NIN stuff mastered loudly. I gave the Audiophile version a listen and it does have the loudness I'd expect of a modern album, and I thought it sounded more detailed and rich than the CD version.

 

[Skyyyeman]

This is a recent "Application Note" by John Sau, chief engineer for Benchmark Media, makers of highly regared audiophile and pro audio digital equipment.  (I didn't check if anyone posted this earlier.)  This article addresses many of the earlier comments on this subject.
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

 

[RRod]

  I hesitate to bring this up again, but I found an article that's a little confusing and I think this is still the best place to ask it.
 
I found an article about Hesitation Marks, Nine Inch Nails last album. Here's the link:
 
http://nineinchnails.tumblr.com/post/59587808317/hesitation-marks-was-mastered-in-two-different
 
Basically, if you bought the CD, you could download an audiophile version (24bits, 48khz) for free.
 
I interpret this article to say that it was impossible to have a modern "loud" album, and have good dynamic range at the same time. It seems they wanted an album that was both loud and had great dynamic range and couldn't do it on a CD. Is redbook not sufficient for this? If you want a loud album with high DR, this article indicates that you'd need more than a CD can address. Is that a correct assessment on my part? If so, is that due to the increased bits, or the increased range?
 
Regardless of what you think of the loudness wars, I really do like NIN stuff mastered loudly. I gave the Audiophile version a listen and it does have the loudness I'd expect of a modern album, and I thought it sounded more detailed and rich than the CD version.

 
Absolute loudness, that is, how loud your ears hear the actual sound out of your speakers/phones, depends on how high you set your amp. Let's say you set it to where the relatively loudest passage of an album is uncomfortably loud. Dynamic range is then how absolutely loud the quietest parts of your album sound. 16bits allows these quiets parts to still be quite soft even if the loudest parts are near intolerable, at least in any normal listening room.
 
"Loudness war" albums have had their soft parts brought up, so that the dynamic range of the music is reduced, but again this isn't the "fault" of 16bits, it's the fault of the person making the decision to reduce the range in this way.

 

[RRod]

  This is a recent "Application Note" by John Sau, chief engineer for Benchmark Media, makers of highly regared audiophile and pro audio digital equipment.  (I didn't check if anyone posted this earlier.)  This article addresses many of the earlier comments on this subject.
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

 
That article stays rather honest despite mentioning company hardware; kudos to that! Still underplays a bit just how ear-splittingly loud 130dBspl is, though.

 

[StanD]

  This is a recent "Application Note" by John Sau, chief engineer for Benchmark Media, makers of highly regared audiophile and pro audio digital equipment.  (I didn't check if anyone posted this earlier.)  This article addresses many of the earlier comments on this subject.
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949345-high-resolution-audio-bit-depth

This article even tries to help the 24 bit world. It states that the human perception threshold is 0 dB SPL, I believe it's really 4 dB SPL. It uses a 130 dB SPL figure for the threshold of pain, figures vary from 120 to 140 dB. I'd say that 120 dB is incredibly loud and will cause most people pain, other than half deaf guitarists that stand next to their speakers at full blast. Even with this 14 dB added edge, 16 Bits still came up as the best practical bit depth for playback systems.

 

[caml]

  I hesitate to bring this up again, but I found an article that's a little confusing and I think this is still the best place to ask it.
 
I found an article about Hesitation Marks, Nine Inch Nails last album. Here's the link:
 
http://nineinchnails.tumblr.com/post/59587808317/hesitation-marks-was-mastered-in-two-different
 
Basically, if you bought the CD, you could download an audiophile version (24bits, 48khz) for free.
 
I interpret this article to say that it was impossible to have a modern "loud" album, and have good dynamic range at the same time. It seems they wanted an album that was both loud and had great dynamic range and couldn't do it on a CD. Is redbook not sufficient for this? If you want a loud album with high DR, this article indicates that you'd need more than a CD can address. Is that a correct assessment on my part? If so, is that due to the increased bits, or the increased range?

 
That is not the way I understand the article. What I gather is that they released a normal version with more heavily compressed dynamics and the very low frequencies cut off, to sound good on any setup. And an audiophile version less heavily compressed and with all sub bass frequencies kept.
 
The very low frequencies convey a lot of energy that 1) interferes with the process of dynamic compression (these very low frequencies will account for most of the energy of the sound during the dynamic compression process, in a way that is not proportional to our ears perception of these frequencies) 2) sub bass frequencies are not heard on an average sound system but can still alter the reproduction of the higher frequencies (in a bad way). Those are 2 reasons to release such a cut off version.
 
They could have released the "audiophile" mastered version in 16 bits, that wouldn't have made a difference.
 
I have the "audiophile" version... Just for fun I used a dynamic range meter on track #2 "Copy of A" : a whopping 4,7 dB dynamic range throughout the whole song... I think that could fit on a 16 bit CD alright

 

[U2Bono269]

Thank you. That makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Skyyyeman]

Here's an earlier (8/14) but similar article by John Siau, chief engineer of Benchmark, entitled "AUDIO MYTH - "24-BIT AUDIO HAS MORE RESOLUTION THAN 16-BIT AUDIO"
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/15121729-audio-myth-24-bit-audio-has-more-resolution-than-16-bit-audio

 

[jugate]

  Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are both lossless formats.
24 bit cannot sound worse than 16 bit.

 
ok thanks!

 

[knucklehead]

   It states that the human perception threshold is 0 dB SPL, I believe it's really 4 dB SPL. 

I think it's just that it would be difficult to while living ... for very long ...   Things like blood flowing in your head and random air motion hitting your eardrums is about 4dB AFIK. Looking for a reference, I just saw breathing listed at 10dB.