Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz

[71 dB]

Misinformation or not is the question.

How can one tell who is spreading misinformation?

Sure, we sadly live in post factual World, but we try to keep something alive of the better past when facts meant something.

Is there any peer-reviewed scientific research that proves the 24-bit version of an analog audio signal would sound the same as the 16-bit version of the same analog audio signal?

I am bad at keeping in my mind what study has said what. My mind absorbs the core information, adds it to my knowledge/understanding and that's it. Other members here might know better.

We can ask why would 24 bit sound different from 16 bit? We know what the difference is: Take the 24 bit version and substract the 16 bit version from it. This can be easily done in Audacity for example. The result is noise at the level of 16 bit dither assuming the 24 bit version has much more real dynamic range. Can you hear this noise? You should not in reasonable listening levels. You can maybe just hear this noise if you raise it 20-30 dB, but this means the music would make you deaf and your gear would blow up. So, you never listen to music that loud and even if you did, the hearing damages would make it impossible to hear much anything. This means you don't hear this noise even when there is nothing else masking it. Now, add the music on it and you'll understand how hearing differences between 24 bit and 16 bit is a ridiculous idea, barely worth of scientific study.

However, we can hear the difference between 16 bit and 8 bit, because the dither level of 8 bit is quite high. Certain music types can mask this noise well, but not all. That's what I have concluded myself when testing it.

It really comes down to the question of why would 24 bit sound different from 16 bit? How much bits do we need in your opinion to make the sound so transparent more bits don't matter? 20 bits? 24 bits? 32 bits? 235 bits? Infinite bits? In my opinion the threshold is about 13 bits to be on the safe side, but that's just me. Some people may say 12 bits, some 14 bits, but it is somewhere there and clearly 16 bits is ENOUGH.

If it does, could anyone show us the research? If there is any such research, it could conclude who is spreading misinformation.

Why do you think we spread misinformation? If I didn't have good education, I might think bigger numbers must mean better fidelity, but I do have education that allows me to understand well what bit depth means in regards of audible fidelity. For people who have the proper education it is clear 8 bits is not enough, but 16 bits is. The threshold is somewhere between these numbers.

There are countless of Youtube videos about this. There are countless of articles about this. All just misinformation? For what reason? What are these people (including us) selling? If 16 bits wasn't enough then I would admit that of course, but luckily it is. Sometimes technology simply becomes good enough. That's the whole point of digital audio. It makes good enough easy to achieve. If we needed to add bits more and more, digital audio would just like analog audio: Good quality for billionaires who can afford the best and bad quality for normal people who can't.

 

[castleofargh]

Well, 16 vs 24bit already assumes the same 24bit file converted to 16bit without anything beyond dither. Otherwise, they're simply different tracks/master/whatever.
Then we have to also assume there is something between 16 and 24bit that's worth having. In a realistic situation, we can expect some 20 to 30dB of ambient crap in the room while recording, then the mics have whatever SNR, and we just have to hope that all is set perfectly for nominal amplitude everywhere, including the band playing real loud to escape room noise. Or we can think about fully synthetic albums, those won't have to worry about all those noises and gain settings.
Even then, We know that even at the DAC we already don't have 24bit anymore. It's more realistic to expect between ...19 and 21? And obviously we then have the same issues as recording, with noises and distortions from the amp, the transducers, the room. And we also have to consider the imperative need to listen to music quite loud, otherwise human sensitivity alone will stop registering the signal from those low bits. In an anechoic chamber, the limit even in the 1 to 3kHz will be close to 0dB SPL, so in a room, that will inevitably be worse and any signal below that is irrelevant to the human ear even under the most ideal lab conditions.

So I guess those who really want to find differences, will find a way, and a track with long enough ultra quiet passages that allows them to just crank up the volume to a ludicrous level for the sake of picking up all the goodness of 24bit files. I, for one, listen to music at a fairly low level, in part because I don't enjoy very loud sounds in general, and in part because I hope to keep what's left of my ears for a long time. In practice, forget 16 vs 24, I rarely can pick up 10bit vs 16 bit. In more serious listening conditions and louder but still reasonable output, I'm also in that 12 or 13 area, depending on the track and how desperate I am to find something.

In general, I would still argue that 16bit are good, because not every album sold peaks has samples that peak at 0dB(well, newer release tend to was nothing).


About qobuz in particular, I never tried it because I've always thought of it as a hires streaming service. I don't know if there are that many people who would subscribe to that service without a desire for hires? Seems unlikely to me, regardless of what's audibly different and why.


edit: I forgot about mixing! It's such a giant impact for noises on the track, and I managed to forget it.

 

[sunjam]

Sure, we sadly live in post factual World, but we try to keep something alive of the better past when facts meant something.


I am bad at keeping in my mind what study has said what. My mind absorbs the core information, adds it to my knowledge/understanding and that's it. Other members here might know better.

We can ask why would 24 bit sound different from 16 bit? We know what the difference is: Take the 24 bit version and substract the 16 bit version from it. This can be easily done in Audacity for example. The result is noise at the level of 16 bit dither assuming the 24 bit version has much more real dynamic range. Can you hear this noise? You should not in reasonable listening levels. You can maybe just hear this noise if you raise it 20-30 dB, but this means the music would make you deaf and your gear would blow up. So, you never listen to music that loud and even if you did, the hearing damages would make it impossible to hear much anything. This means you don't hear this noise even when there is nothing else masking it. Now, add the music on it and you'll understand how hearing differences between 24 bit and 16 bit is a ridiculous idea, barely worth of scientific study.

However, we can hear the difference between 16 bit and 8 bit, because the dither level of 8 bit is quite high. Certain music types can mask this noise well, but not all. That's what I have concluded myself when testing it.

It really comes down to the question of why would 24 bit sound different from 16 bit? How much bits do we need in your opinion to make the sound so transparent more bits don't matter? 20 bits? 24 bits? 32 bits? 235 bits? Infinite bits? In my opinion the threshold is about 13 bits to be on the safe side, but that's just me. Some people may say 12 bits, some 14 bits, but it is somewhere there and clearly 16 bits is ENOUGH.


Why do you think we spread misinformation? If I didn't have good education, I might think bigger numbers must mean better fidelity, but I do have education that allows me to understand well what bit depth means in regards of audible fidelity. For people who have the proper education it is clear 8 bits is not enough, but 16 bits is. The threshold is somewhere between these numbers.

There are countless of Youtube videos about this. There are countless of articles about this. All just misinformation? For what reason? What are these people (including us) selling? If 16 bits wasn't enough then I would admit that of course, but luckily it is. Sometimes technology simply becomes good enough. That's the whole point of digital audio. It makes good enough easy to achieve. If we needed to add bits more and more, digital audio would just like analog audio: Good quality for billionaires who can afford the best and bad quality for normal people who can't.

Thanks a lot for your reply. I always look at your reply in great detail, as it has a lot of information.

It is great that (I hope) we all agree that 16-bit is better than 8-bit. The question here is why we stop at 16-bit.

All the benefits you got when you moved from 8-bit to 16-bit would be the same when you moved from 16-bit to 24-bit.

Most people would argue that the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is so small that no one can hear it. <=== This is the misinformation part.
For this, I will leave it to the listeners to judge if they can hear it or not. I am not privileged to tell/decide what other people can hear or not.

One thing for sure is that 24-bit is inherently superior to 16-bit given 24-bit has 256 times more quantization levels than 16-bit. (It is the same when compared 16-bit with 8-bit)

How many bits is enough? It depends on your need.

If we go back to the theoretical base for digital audio, it is the Shannon Sampling theorem. Does it say how many bits are enough? Does it say 16-bit is enough?

 

[sunjam]

There are countless of Youtube videos about this. There are countless of articles about this. All just misinformation? For what reason? What are these people (including us) selling? If 16 bits wasn't enough then I would admit that of course, but luckily it is. Sometimes technology simply becomes good enough. That's the whole point of digital audio. It makes good enough easy to achieve. If we needed to add bits more and more, digital audio would just like analog audio: Good quality for billionaires who can afford the best and bad quality for normal people who can't.

Having countless of Youtube videos and articles supporting one claim doesn't automatically make that claim correct. In the end, it is the content that matters; not how many supporters there are or who said it.

 

[Davesrose]

Most people would argue that the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is so small that no one can hear it. <=== This is the misinformation part.
For this, I will leave it to the listeners to judge if they can hear it or not. I am not privileged to tell/decide what other people can hear or not.

How is it misinformation, when it's been well researched that perceptual hearing does not extend past 20kHz, and that a sampling rate above 40kHz is what's required?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

One thing for sure is that 24-bit is inherently superior to 16-bit given 24-bit has 256 times more quantization levels than 16-bit. (It is the same when compared 16-bit with 8-bit)

This is what your visual was for trying to argue that 24bit quantization is required for perfect wave reconstruction. How can the human ear actually perceive this small of a rounding difference?

 

[sunjam]

How is it misinformation, when it's been well researched that perceptual hearing does not extend past 20kHz, and that a sampling rate above 40kHz is what's required?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

Please do read the title of this thread again. It is about 24/16 bit; not the sampling rate.

Don't be confused between sampling rate and 24/16 bit. They are two different things.

We can create another thread if you want to discuss the sampling rate and the 20kHz limit.

 

[Davesrose]

Please do read the title of this thread again. It is about 24/16 bit; not the sampling rate.

Don't be confused between sampling rate and 24/16 bit. They are two different things.

We can create another thread if you want to discuss the sampling rate and the 20kHz limit.

Please read the rest of my post, where I also address bit depth. 16bit is enough for capturing 44.1kHz sampling. You have not provided any evidence for 24bit precision being needed for hearing with a song title. Just one graph that shows a rounding difference that the ear wouldn't be able to hear when we're also considering a sound wave is what's perceived over time. 24bit and sampling rate are often used in conjunction as that's what hires formats are. You also say it's misinformation to refer to the sound engineers who studied these things decades ago, and did find that 16bit was adequate for storing a 44.1kHz signal.

 

[sunjam]

16bit is enough for capturing 44.1kHz sampling. You have not provided any evidence for 24bit precision being needed for hearing. Just one graph that shows a rounding difference that the ear wouldn't be able to hear when we're also considering a sound wave is what's perceived over time.

What do you mean by "16 bit is enough for capturing 44.1kHz sampling"?

Does it mean that less (or more) bit depth is required if people want to capture a lower sampling rate? What is the (math) relationship between bit depth and sampling rate, if there is any?

To my understanding, bit depth and sampling rate are two different concepts. It looks like your mind is pretty confused between these two concepts.

You have not provided any evidence for 24bit precision being needed for hearing with a song title.

I didn't say 24-bit is needed. Did I? How come you could create so many things in your mind that I didn't say.

You also say it's misinformation to refer to the sound engineers who studied these things decades ago, and did find that 16bit was adequate for storing a 44.1kHz signal.

Is there any supporting evidence for your claim?

Why can't sound engineers make things better now if they found out 24-bit is better? Did they say 16 bit is good decades ago have to keep saying the same thing for ages even 24-bit is inherently better than 16-bit?

I believe that when the Apple M1 chip was introduced, they claimed that chip was the best ever made. Do you still think the M1 chip is the best chip Apple has ever made now?

 

[sunjam]

This is what your visual was for trying to argue that 24bit quantization is required for perfect wave reconstruction. How can the human ear actually perceive this small of a rounding difference?

Did I say "perfect" wave reconstruction when using 24-bit? I think I didn't. It seems the word "perfect" is in your mind only.

 

[Davesrose]

What do you mean by "16 bit is enough for capturing 44.1kHz sampling"?

Does it mean that less (or more) bit depth is required if people want to capture a lower sampling rate? What is the (math) relationship between bit depth and sampling rate, if there is any?

To my understanding, bit depth and sampling rate are two different concepts. It looks like your mind is pretty confused between these two concepts.

I'm not confusing things. Maybe you are, as you've been on the side that 24bit audio titles are better (which are marketed as highres: higher sampling rate). It looks like you're going round in circles saying it's misinformation when engineers found that 16bit 44.1kHz was the absolute threshold for sampling rate (frequency range) and dynamic range (+90dB), that fills the range of human hearing.

I didn't say 24-bit is needed. Did I? How come you could create so many things in your mind that I didn't say.

Throughout this thread, you've been arguing with people who say CD quality is more than adequate for music titles: claiming they're trying to burn audiophiles at the stake. The quote I previously quoted does show your point of view:

Most people would argue that the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is so small that no one can hear it. <=== This is the misinformation part.
For this, I will leave it to the listeners to judge if they can hear it or not. I am not privileged to tell/decide what other people can hear or not.

Is there any supporting evidence for your claim?

There's plenty of evidence that has been stated, and you ignore it. I know gregorio is short tempered, but he actually produces music. He would actually know what is needed for reproducing the frequency range and dynamic range of audio for music. He's tried to point you to sources (dating back over 100 years) when it comes to hearing thresholds and storing audio information

Why can't sound engineers make things better now if they found out 24-bit is better? Did they say 16 bit is good decades ago have to keep saying the same thing for ages even 24-bit is inherently better than 16-bit?

The topic is bit depth for audio reproduction. Not what bit depth sound engineers use. They may be using higher bit depths, as during the mixing phase, they may need to adjust higher into the dynamic range (and not induce clipping). The recording and engineering phases are the only theoretical advantages of a higher bit depth: sound engineers that aren't selling you highres will tell you 16bit is all that's needed for reproduction.

I believe that when the Apple M1 chip was introduced, they claimed that chip was the best ever made. Do you still think the M1 chip is the best chip Apple has ever made now?

You blamed me for changing the topic! This has no relevance. Advances in computer technology are for processing all data, multitasking, etc. Do you think it's better to play a sound file with a M3 chip instead of a M1 chip?

 

[Davesrose]

Did I say "perfect" wave reconstruction when using 24-bit? I think I didn't. It seems the word "perfect" is in your mind only.

You've been saying 16 bit isn't "prefectly fine" for reproducing all music. I'm sorry that I assumed you thought only 24bit was needed. If you think 32bit would produce something even more audibly perfect, you're a good consumer for all marketing hype.

 

[sunjam]

You've been saying 16 bit isn't "prefectly fine" for reproducing all music. I'm sorry that I assumed you thought only 24bit was needed. If you think 32bit would produce something even more audibly perfect, you're a good consumer for all marketing hype.

The best marketing hype of all time was CD marketing. It was invented in 1979.

45 years have passed, and there are still some people who truly believe that the CD format is still the best format for playing digital music.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

The best marketing hype of all time was CD marketing. It was invented in 1979.

45 years have passed, and there are still some people who truly believe that the CD format is still the best format for playing digital music.

The irony is very thick....

 

[Davesrose]

The best marketing hype of all time was CD marketing. It was invented in 1979.

45 years have passed, and there are still some people who truly believe that the CD format is still the best format for playing digital music.

Not some people. Most people (audiophiles that subscribe to the belief that 24bit highres is audibly better are not the majority of people). Look at current audio marketing for mass streaming-most does not get into 24bit lossless. Apple Music, for example, advertises lossless 16bit and Dolby Atmos surround.

 

[sunjam]

Not some people. Most people (audiophiles that subscribe to the belief that 24bit highres is audibly better are not the majority of people). Look at current audio marketing for mass streaming-most does not get into 24bit lossless. Apple Music, for example, advertises lossless 16bit and Dolby Atmos surround.

Acceptance and fact are two different concepts again.

Think about this:

Smoking is hazardous to health. Quitting smoking is good for health (a fact I hope all of us agree with).
However, the acceptance of quitting smoking is pretty low among smokers.

Having a relative low acceptance does not invalidate the fact. A fact is a fact, even though not many people accept it.

You blamed me for changing the topic! This has no relevance. Advances in computer technology are for processing all data, multitasking, etc. Do you think it's better to play a sound file with a M3 chip instead of a M1 chip?

Your wild guess is 100% correct this time. M3 chip do play better music as I used HQPlayer to upsample my CD-quality files in real time to DSD256.

Having a faster chip allows me to select better filtering/dithering/modulation when upsampling files for my DAC.