[AaronStewart]

Hi,
 
Lets say I have a device that can play 24 bit files but nothing above 48 khz.
 
I have a track in 16 bit, 44.1 khz FLAC format and I also have the same track in 24 bit 96 khz FLAC. But I will have to downsample  the second one to 24 bit 48 khz so it will play on my device. 
 
Which file will sound better? (In theory; assuming I have high quality headphones, etc.)
 
I am new to this and I apologize if I have said something really stupid in my confusion. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

It's not - it's still at the original bit depth that is way beyond the minimum 16bit, with no compression of the signal (ie MP3 "shaves off" the extremes of the frequency range, which is why below 320kbps it's easily noticeable). Merely lowering the sampling frequency does not result in "losses" to the signal, and even increasing the sample rate actually benefiting playback that can be easily audible to the listener is debatable (ie a properly recorded/mastered album n 16bit and 24bit are difficult to distinguish from each other when using the exact same system).

 

[linglingjr]

It's physically impossible to hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit files unless you have super human hearing/caused yourself to go deaf in the process.  
 
This might help clear up any confusion you have:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
Well worth the read imo.

 

[Head Injury]

Downsampling can be damaging but differences will be well below audible if you use a half competent resampler. 96 to 48 is a fairly painless conversion too, since you're just halving the sampling rate. There's no messy rounding like there would be going from 96 to 44.1.
 
As for what sounds better, bit depths above 16 bit and sampling rates above 44.1 offer no audible benefit during playback. Okay, 24 bit can be audible if you crank your headphones up way above safe listening levels in an anechoic chamber and then play silence, as you'll maybe hear the digital noise floor. But obviously this isn't a realistic scenario.
 
What can have a benefit is the mastering of the music. Sometimes "hi-rez" audio is remastered to sound better. It's not better because of the absurdly high bitrate, it's better because they made it sound better. The mastering won't change when you downsample. So which one sounds better will depend on if they're mastered differently, and which you prefer. You can try an ABX comparator plugin for a program like Foobar2000 to see if you can hear a difference, and if you can pick the mastering you like more.

 

[AaronStewart]

OK. Thanks for the info. I've established that if I have the choice between 24 bit and 16 bit, I might as well go for the 16 bit to save space, as I won't be able to hear a difference anyway.

 

[theSC00BZ]

<Removed and moved to Sound Science>