[clc220]

been playgin around with 24bit and 16bit audio, i hear a lot of raving about 24bit audio, but to my ears there is something about it i don't like. it seems too perfect and that there is something artificial present just wondering what you guys think.

 

[pheonix991]

I can't tell a difference between the 2.

 

[jiiteepee]

24-bit for 24-bit sources only and not for 16-bit sources (well, seems like the resampling (to 44.1kHz) quality issue in Audigy cards is gone w/ using 24-bit path but the frequency response seems to become cut (filtered ?) way too early then (by the RMAA results so, it can be the ADCs effect too)).

jiitee

 

[Azultra]

huh

 

[Uncle Erik]

Between SACD and an upsampling DAC, I only listen to 24 bit digital. I've come to prefer the sound.

Still, there's some magic in analog. I listened to vinyl for awhile the other day and it was terrific. So is the tube FM tuner. There's something special there.

 

[bigshot]

The only advantage to 24 bit is in the resolution in low volume sections. At normal listening levels, it's identical to 16 bit. It's only really needed for mixing situations... no need for normal listening.

See ya
Steve

 

[clc220]

hmmm, so i guess its just me. Maybe i just need to get used to the sound. 24/96k just sounds so artificial for 16bit source, imho.

i am only doing this cos i got a av710.

 

[Alucard]

Are you talking about upsampling a 16-bit source (regular CD) to 24-bit, or general 16-bit (CD) vs 24-bit (DVD-A) audio?

If you mean upsampling then wouldn't a 16-bit output be the best? Why try to add information that isn't there originally?
But if you're talking about sources then I don't see any reason why 24-bit wouldn't be better.

Edit: I noticed form your last post that you mean upsampling.

 

[Electro Point]

I don't hear much of improvement with 24-bit over 16-bit unless the source is in 24-bit originally.

 

[Bones13]

I have a few CDs recorded in 24 bit. Therefore I set my system to 24 bit. Certainly no loss of speed or SQ for all the other CDs, but the 24 bit ones are nice.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alucard But if you're talking about sources then I don't see any reason why 24-bit wouldn't be better.

The added resolution is only in very low volume situations. Human ears can't hear the difference at normal listening levels, but if you're mixing and you need to boost the level of a particular sound in the mix, the added resolution is a benefit. But for listening to music, the additional resolution is in areas your ears don't reach.

If you compare a 24 bit recording, mixed and played back in 24 bit to the exact same 24 bit recording bounced down to 16 bit, you won't hear a lick of difference.

See ya
Steve

 

[Girlsound]

"Too perfect" ???

lol

Generally, converting a 16bit signal to a 24bit signal simply means inserting the resultant level into the 24 bit. This is NOT the same as resampling. No resolution is added. When you use a DAC that takes 24bit it allows the signal to be read by the more linear DAC.

A "24bit" CD was recorded at 24bit. The CD is 16bit.

Give credit where credit is due. Human hearing is far more sensative (no pun intended) then is often assumed. Human hearing is logarithmic, like analog recording. We are more sensitive at lower volume levels than at higher ones. There is a natural compression that happens when the sound gets very high. Analog recording and vinyl has far greater linearity at low signal levels (although lower signal to noise ratio) than 16bit digital. This follows the human hearing...perhaps why analog sounds more "correct" to many. 24bit linearity is much closer (perhaps better) to analog at low levels.

Classical recording has always been a good example. Classical music has enormous dynamic range. This used to be a serious challenge to 16bit recording. In order to get decent low level resolution the gain needed to be increased. But when the signal got hot, blammo. Unless you used heavy compression (not nice for classical) you had a hard time. When higher bit recording came along (20 and 24 bit) a collective sigh was heard (24bit is good at conveying the subtle shades of this sigh

).

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The only advantage to 24 bit is in the resolution in low volume sections. At normal listening levels, it's identical to 16 bit. It's only really needed for mixing situations... no need for normal listening. See ya Steve

... unless it has low volume sections as you've already said.

 

[bigshot]

I've worked on a 24 bit ProTools recording and editing suite, and I've compared playback in 24 bit and 16 bit in controlled listening situations. There is no audible difference. The improved resolution is so low in volume, it won't improve the music- it's below even sotto passages. I did a test of a transfer of an audiophile LP in 24 bit. The low level resolution improvement was below the level of the surface noise of the record, and this record had quiet surfaces.

Your ears have a finite abilty to hear. You can resolve sound so bats can hear it, but it won't make any difference to you. There are plenty of things *within* the range of human hearing that you can do to improve the sound that would be a lot more effective than listening to 24 bit playback.

And by the way, human hearing definitely is NOT more sensitive in low volume levels than it is in higher ones. DBX dynamic noise filtering operates on this principle.

See ya
Steve

 

[wanderman]

if I am listening to 24 bit stuff I use 24 bit...and the same goes for 16bit.